PDA

View Full Version : MERGED: School Bans Girl for Wearing Chastity Ring



Celtkin
06-24-2007, 07:27 AM
A teenage girl who was banned by her school from wearing a "purity ring" is taking her case to the High Court.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, is a member of a Christian group called the Silver Ring Thing and one of a number of students at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, who wears a silver ring engraved with a Biblical reference — "1 Thes 434," a reference to St. Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians — as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

She claims that her secondary school is breaching her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring, while allowing Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bangles.

The school denies her claims, arguing that the purity ring is not an integral part of the Christian faith, and contravenes its uniform policy.

Playfoot will argue that her right to express her religious beliefs under Article Nine of the Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm) has been breached by the ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286395,00.html

Pagan
06-24-2007, 09:03 AM
Had this been about her wearing a cross around her neck, I'd be on her side. The ring isn't an integral part of her faith, and if it violates the school dress code then the school is within their rights to not allow it.

Celtkin
06-24-2007, 09:42 AM
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I don't know bro. Given the wording of the UK Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm), it may be difficult for the school to prove that banning her from wearing a ring was "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"

Stitches
06-24-2007, 10:53 AM
Who decides what's an integral part of one's faith though? I mean walking around without wearing a cross around your neck, as an example that Pagan points out, doesn't make you less of a christian or something. I agree with the school banning it, if it goes against the dress code.

Pagan
06-24-2007, 02:51 PM
I don't know bro. Given the wording of the UK Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm), it may be difficult for the school to prove that banning her from wearing a ring was "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"
I understand, but a dress code is a dress code. If it's a private school, they have the right not to allow it, unless it's like a Hindu's turban.

I mean, banning a shirt saying "Hitler wasn't ALL bad" isn't necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others either...but you wouldn't be able to wear one to school. :wink:

BAMAPHIN 22
06-24-2007, 10:24 PM
A teenage girl who was banned by her school from wearing a "purity ring" is taking her case to the High Court.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, is a member of a Christian group called the Silver Ring Thing (javascript:siteSearch('Silver Ring Thing');) and one of a number of students at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, who wears a silver ring engraved with a Biblical reference — "1 Thes 434," a reference to St. Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians (javascript:siteSearch('St. Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians');) — as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/24/teen-girl-banned-from-school-for-chastity-ring-heads-to-court/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F0%2C2933%2C286395%2C00.html&frame=true

Mike13
06-25-2007, 10:30 AM
I don't see what the big deal is, Its just a ring.

Stitches
06-25-2007, 10:48 AM
I don't see what the big deal is, Its just a ring.

Exactly, so it shouldn't be an issue to not wear it to school.

ckparrothead
06-25-2007, 11:49 AM
I don't see the big deal, this is about a dress code. The dress code allows for exceptions in cases where the article is integral to the faith. This purity ring thing is not. There has to be some kind of historical context for whether an article qualifies as something that is integral to the faith, you can't just go making stuff up as you go along...like all the sudden she and some others decide that they can't wear button up shirts and jackets anymore they have to wear a t-shirt that says "God is #1" on it because they deem it to be integral to their faith...where in reality it's just a fad.

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2007, 12:22 PM
Had this been about her wearing a cross around her neck, I'd be on her side. The ring isn't an integral part of her faith, and if it violates the school dress code then the school is within their rights to not allow it.


Consider what you're saying though. By your definition, it's ok for other people to decide what YOUR religious expression can and cannot be. Just because you consider the cross to be the only valid expression of christianity doesn't mean others feel the same way. How would you feel if someone arbitrarily decided that the pentagram was the only valid expression of paganism?

It's dangerous for other people to decide what is and isn't an integral part of any persons religion. Of course, we can't allow people to violate laws in expression of their religion(Rastafarians and pot smoking for example), but short of that, we need to allow some leeway.

Oh, and comparing a t-shirt which everyone could read and everyone would be offended by to a ring...just a BIT extreme Pagan.

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2007, 12:30 PM
I don't see the big deal, this is about a dress code. The dress code allows for exceptions in cases where the article is integral to the faith. This purity ring thing is not. There has to be some kind of historical context for whether an article qualifies as something that is integral to the faith, you can't just go making stuff up as you go along...like all the sudden she and some others decide that they can't wear button up shirts and jackets anymore they have to wear a t-shirt that says "God is #1" on it because they deem it to be integral to their faith...where in reality it's just a fad.


Actually, rings have a long tradition with the Christian Church. But consider the danger of your view. The Army opposed Wicca in part because it doesn't have a long established history in it's present form. The current dogma is very recent. So what your saying is that because a religious act doesn't have a well established history behind it, it has no validity. That's a dangerous path because it means that other people have the right to define YOUR religion by their perceptions.

Scatman
07-02-2007, 03:12 PM
schools can shove it.

Alex44
07-02-2007, 03:15 PM
There is no rule in Christianity about wearing a chastity ring, it is not integral, case closed.

Pagan
07-02-2007, 04:17 PM
Consider what you're saying though. By your definition, it's ok for other people to decide what YOUR religious expression can and cannot be. Just because you consider the cross to be the only valid expression of christianity doesn't mean others feel the same way. How would you feel if someone arbitrarily decided that the pentagram was the only valid expression of paganism?

It's dangerous for other people to decide what is and isn't an integral part of any persons religion. Of course, we can't allow people to violate laws in expression of their religion(Rastafarians and pot smoking for example), but short of that, we need to allow some leeway.

Oh, and comparing a t-shirt which everyone could read and everyone would be offended by to a ring...just a BIT extreme Pagan.
Okay Phin, of course I KNEW you'd come in defending her right to this. Let me pose a question to you....

An integral part of Wiccan tools of the Craft is what's called an athame. It's a ritual dagger. Should a Wiccan child be allowed to bring their athame to school with them? After all, it's and integral part of their religion, isn't it?

I was raised Chirstian for the better part of 25 + years, and this is the FIRST I've ever heard of a "purity ring".


Actually, rings have a long tradition with the Christian Church. But consider the danger of your view. The Army opposed Wicca in part because it doesn't have a long established history in it's present form.
Get your facts straight Phin. The army had no problem whatsoever with Wicca. Wiccan soldiers were openly practicing the Craft on army bases. It was Christian opposition that raised a stink about it.

And about the pentacles on the tombstones, again...it was Christian opposition. Look into it, you'll find that I'm correct.

Bad example.

PhinPhan1227
07-03-2007, 03:52 PM
Okay Phin, of course I KNEW you'd come in defending her right to this. Let me pose a question to you....

An integral part of Wiccan tools of the Craft is what's called an athame. It's a ritual dagger. Should a Wiccan child be allowed to bring their athame to school with them? After all, it's and integral part of their religion, isn't it?

I was raised Chirstian for the better part of 25 + years, and this is the FIRST I've ever heard of a "purity ring".


Get your facts straight Phin. The army had no problem whatsoever with Wicca. Wiccan soldiers were openly practicing the Craft on army bases. It was Christian opposition that raised a stink about it.

And about the pentacles on the tombstones, again...it was Christian opposition. Look into it, you'll find that I'm correct.

Bad example.


Ok, now you're comparing a dagger to a ring. Come on PAgan, can we at least TRY to keep things on a decent level of comparison? First you had a "we love Hitler" t-shirt, and now a dagger?

Now, historically, rings were part of the very early years of Christianity. They can still be seen in things like the claddaugh(a lovely mixture of pagan and christian traditions), and engagement/wedding bands and confirmation rings. Further, the Ethiopian Christian Church(one of, if not the oldest running church) uses concentric rings as it's symbolism, as do some of the oldest Europeand churches. The three rings symbolized the Trinity.

So while it's not the most readily apparent symbol of Christianity, the history is still there. More importantly though, the basic fact remains that we are telling people what is and isn't significant to THIER religious beliefs. If you allow bangles and scarves to one religion(harmless accesories), than how do you deny another religion THEIR harmless accesories? Note, those accessories are neither dangerous, nor blatantly offensive.

Oh, and lastly, I believe that the military brass was keeping Wiccan symbols off tomb stones weren't they?

Sponge
07-04-2007, 10:29 AM
I think the question should be "is it an important part of her religious expression in her own mind", and in this case it clearly is. Certainly, allowing her ring to supercede the dress code could lead to people claiming all sorts of things are a part of their religious expression, thus opening the worm can. But it does seem sort of invasive to have a school setting the boundaries of religious expression.

Pagan
07-04-2007, 12:09 PM
Ok, now you're comparing a dagger to a ring. Come on PAgan, can we at least TRY to keep things on a decent level of comparison? First you had a "we love Hitler" t-shirt, and now a dagger?

Decent level of comparison? Come on yourself Phin, the athame is a FAR more integral part of the Wiccan faith than a purity ring is of the Christian faith! Why does she get the pass and the Wiccan shouldn't?


So while it's not the most readily apparent symbol of Christianity, the history is still there. More importantly though, the basic fact remains that we are telling people what is and isn't significant to THIER religious beliefs. If you allow bangles and scarves to one religion(harmless accesories), than how do you deny another religion THEIR harmless accesories? Note, those accessories are neither dangerous, nor blatantly offensive.
The athame is not dangerous. It isn't a sharpened dagger, and it is used only symbolically. Also, its history is still there for the Wiccan faith. Again I'll say it, I've BEEN a Christian, and I've been around them my entire life (family). I've NEVER heard of a "purity ring" until reading it in this thread. So the "history" of the purity ring is pretty much nonexistent. In fact, if you look it up in our old favorite stomping grounds - wikipedia - you'll see that it says:


Purity rings, or chastity rings originated in the United States in the 1990s among Christian affiliated sexual abstinence groups. The rings are sold to adolescents, or to parents so that they may be given to their adolescent children as gifts.
Some history bro. A whole 15 years tops? So stop trying to make us believe that this is an integral part of your faith. You're dead wrong in this case.

It would seem that now YOU are the one who's deciding what is integral now and what isn't, and being heavily biased in the process. :wink:

Scrap
07-04-2007, 02:00 PM
No way anyone could ever get hurt by an athame. Let's make them school issue.

Den54
07-04-2007, 02:05 PM
No way anyone could ever get hurt by an athame. Let's make them school issue.

Sounds like someone is disrespecting anothers faith.

Pagan
07-04-2007, 02:10 PM
Sounds like someone is disrespecting anothers faith.
Isn't it ironic when they start doing that? :wink:

Scrap
07-05-2007, 06:36 AM
Sounds like someone is disrespecting anothers faith.

Not at all. I'm agreeing with Pagan. As he said, the athame is not dangerous. Attack the source, if you do not agree. That wouldn't serve your argument very well though, would it ?

Scrap
07-05-2007, 06:40 AM
Isn't it ironic when they start doing that? :wink:
I backed up your statement. You don't like it ? Or do you just see the nonsense in the words you typed ?

Pagan
07-05-2007, 07:29 AM
I backed up your statement. You don't like it ? Or do you just see the nonsense in the words you typed ?
If that's the case then I retract my statement. Your original one sure sounded condescending though.

The "let's make them school issue" part especially. :wink:

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 03:32 PM
Decent level of comparison? Come on yourself Phin, the athame is a FAR more integral part of the Wiccan faith than a purity ring is of the Christian faith! Why does she get the pass and the Wiccan shouldn't?


The athame is not dangerous. It isn't a sharpened dagger, and it is used only symbolically. Also, its history is still there for the Wiccan faith. Again I'll say it, I've BEEN a Christian, and I've been around them my entire life (family). I've NEVER heard of a "purity ring" until reading it in this thread. So the "history" of the purity ring is pretty much nonexistent. In fact, if you look it up in our old favorite stomping grounds - wikipedia - you'll see that it says:


Some history bro. A whole 15 years tops? So stop trying to make us believe that this is an integral part of your faith. You're dead wrong in this case.

It would seem that now YOU are the one who's deciding what is integral now and what isn't, and being heavily biased in the process. :wink:

Just because a dagger isn't sharp doesn't make it less dangerous. If a Wiccan wanted to wear a representation of a dagger, I would have zero problem with that. The actual DAGGER however is adifferent matter. Likewise, if a kid wanted to walk around school with an ACTUAL cross, all twenty feet of it, I would have a problem with that as well.

And as for the history of that specific ring being only 15 years old, how do you feel when people tell you Wicca has only been around since the '50's? It doesn't matter. If the religion and it's symbolism is important to YOU, than it should be respected. Christ, if someone wants to call themselves a Jedi and adopt those beliefs as a religion, I don't care that it is only 30 years old. If those beliefs are important to THAT person, and they don't impinge on anyone elses rights, they should be respected.

Simple test here Pagan, what harm was being done by her ring? Where's the bruise? I apply that same rule to EVERYONE, equally. If a Wiccan wanted to wear a representation of the Athame, I would support that 100%. Again, no harm and no POSSIBLE harm. A full sized dagger, sharpened or not, no. A charm or pin, sure. Equal protection my friend. And in my opinion, the benefit of the doubt belongs to the believer, not the government.

Enforcerfin33
07-05-2007, 03:42 PM
Exactly, so it shouldn't be an issue to not wear it to school.
Its a big deal to her though, it isnt offensive.

Pagan
07-05-2007, 03:48 PM
Just because a dagger isn't sharp doesn't make it less dangerous. If a Wiccan wanted to wear a representation of a dagger, I would have zero problem with that. The actual DAGGER however is adifferent matter. Likewise, if a kid wanted to walk around school with an ACTUAL cross, all twenty feet of it, I would have a problem with that as well.
I wasn't using the athame as something I thought kids should bring, I was using it as an example of things that are integral to the faith. It was meant to show that the "purity ring" is NOT an integral part of the Christian faith. The Christian religion existed for centuries before someone decided to create this.


And as for the history of that specific ring being only 15 years old, how do you feel when people tell you Wicca has only been around since the '50's?
I feel proud. Wicca may only be around since the 50's, but the Pagan beliefs it's based on are older even than your faith. It's just an offshoot. Your point?


It doesn't matter. If the religion and it's symbolism is important to YOU, than it should be respected.
But that's just it Phin, it's NOT a symbol of your religion. Did Christ ever say "goeth forth and wear thy purity ring"? No, it's a man made symbol that has nothing to do with the religion itself, but everything to do with trying to get kids not to hump like bunnies. C'mon man, you're way off here.


Christ, if someone wants to call themselves a Jedi and adopt those beliefs as a religion, I don't care that it is only 30 years old. If those beliefs are important to THAT person, and they don't impinge on anyone elses rights, they should be respected.
Again, the school has a dress code that obviously does not include ANY rings.


Simple test here Pagan, what harm was being done by her ring? Where's the bruise? I apply that same rule to EVERYONE, equally. If a Wiccan wanted to wear a representation of the Athame, I would support that 100%. Again, no harm and no POSSIBLE harm. A full sized dagger, sharpened or not, no. A charm or pin, sure. Equal protection my friend. And in my opinion, the benefit of the doubt belongs to the believer, not the government.
To be quite honest, if I were in that school and they told me I couldn't wear a pentacle ring - which I do - I would abide by their rules, keep my pentacle necklace under my shirt, and not make a pain in the *** of myself.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:11 PM
I wasn't using the athame as something I thought kids should bring, I was using it as an example of things that are integral to the faith. It was meant to show that the "purity ring" is NOT an integral part of the Christian faith. The Christian religion existed for centuries before someone decided to create this.


I feel proud. Wicca may only be around since the 50's, but the Pagan beliefs it's based on are older even than your faith. It's just an offshoot. Your point?


But that's just it Phin, it's NOT a symbol of your religion. Did Christ ever say "goeth forth and wear thy purity ring"? No, it's a man made symbol that has nothing to do with the religion itself, but everything to do with trying to get kids not to hump like bunnies. C'mon man, you're way off here.


Again, the school has a dress code that obviously does not include ANY rings.


To be quite honest, if I were in that school and they told me I couldn't wear a pentacle ring - which I do - I would abide by their rules, keep my pentacle necklace under my shirt, and not make a pain in the *** of myself.

But the school DOES allow certain jewelry, that's the point. If it was across the board I would agree with you. But they allow bangles(bracelets) for Sikhs. And they allow head scarves for Muslims. THAT is the problem. THEY are defining what is and isn't valid, and they allow some forms of expression and not others.

Again, if it was across the board I would agree with you. But sinc eit isn't than you would probably fidn yourself arguing the fact that PAganism IS a valid religion, even though some would say it's only a few decades old. THAT is what I want to avoid. Just treat everyone the same, and don't presume that you can define what another persons religion is. That's all I'm asking.

Pagan
07-05-2007, 04:18 PM
But the school DOES allow certain jewelry, that's the point. If it was across the board I would agree with you. But they allow bangles(bracelets) for Sikhs. And they allow head scarves for Muslims. THAT is the problem. THEY are defining what is and isn't valid, and they allow some forms of expression and not others.

Again, if it was across the board I would agree with you. But sinc eit isn't than you would probably fidn yourself arguing the fact that PAganism IS a valid religion, even though some would say it's only a few decades old. THAT is what I want to avoid. Just treat everyone the same, and don't presume that you can define what another persons religion is. That's all I'm asking.
Just a question. Aren't the Sikhs' bangles and the Muslim women's head scarves things that they are required by their faith to wear?

Last I knew, the purity ring isn't required. I'm just taking a wild guess here.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:34 PM
Just a question. Aren't the Sikhs' bangles and the Muslim women's head scarves things that they are required by their faith to wear?

Last I knew, the purity ring isn't required. I'm just taking a wild guess here.

The Sikh bangles are not required, they are only a tradition, like a wedding ring. Again, I'm just asking for uniformity.