Quote# 27469

“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. 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.”

(read the article)

Lydia Playfoot, MSNBC 57 Comments [7/22/2007 12:17:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


This depends; I'm on her side *if* jewelery at the school is allowed, if it isn't, then an exception shouldn't be allowed just for her. Particularly since there is no requirement in Christianity to wear a "purity ring" in the first place.

7/22/2007 12:27:00 AM


Faith is supposed to be personal.

Let's stop parading our beliefs, shall we?

People are getting tired of it.

7/22/2007 12:29:15 AM



7/22/2007 12:54:01 AM


Jewelry isn't allowed-- she wanted an exeption.

If you need to publicly express your faith to the point where rules don't apply to you, you have no faith.

7/22/2007 12:55:16 AM


WTF? Who cares, let the kid wear her ring!

7/22/2007 12:56:36 AM


No matter what I believe about purity rings, she should have the right to wear them. Just as the Muslim girl should have the right to wear her headscarf.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

7/22/2007 1:07:37 AM


Public expressions of faith are like public masturbation scenes, imo.

7/22/2007 1:14:25 AM


If the rules = "no jewelry at all", then sorry, but this girl doesn't have the right to wear her ring. If they make an exception for her, they have to make exception for everyone, and then there'd be no point in having the rule at all.

In my private middle school there were no t-shirts allowed; you couldn't get away with wearing one just because it was "special" to you somehow. In other words, she doesn't deserve special treatment just because her jewelry means something in particular to her. If it were a piece of religiously-mandated clothing/jewelry (e.g., a headscarf or a yarmulke or something like that) I would say she has every right to wear it- but this is just a personal ring.

If she and her parents don't like the rules, they can send her someplace else where wearing jewelry is welcomed!

7/22/2007 1:47:10 AM


The only thing I see that is wrong is that slippery slope argument at the end.

7/22/2007 3:15:43 AM


They let her wear a cross, how is that stopping her expressing her faith?!

7/22/2007 5:23:00 AM


"One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

7/22/2007 6:33:47 AM


The difference between the Muslim head scarf and her purity ring is that a head scarf is a religious requirement; there's no Christian requirement for a purity ring.

7/22/2007 6:48:17 AM


Purity ring? Is it because I live outside the US that I have never heard of it?
Sounds pretty 1984-ish to me.

7/22/2007 8:35:16 AM


@ Vincent-- this is in London. So, it probably has nothing to do with living in the U.S. or not.

It has been ruled for the umpteenth time that students in schools have no rights-- no freedom of the press, no right to free speech, no right to freely assemble, no right to wear whatever they want...

Oddly, kids who get 'purity rings' and do abstinence pledges are more likely to lose their virginity in the next six months.

7/22/2007 11:33:03 AM


Maybe you could simply express your commitment not to have pre-marital sex by not having pre-marital sex. My beliefs are very positive towards the idea of pre-marital sex, but would you allow me to wear clothing or jewelry which expressed that viewpoint?

7/22/2007 11:41:19 AM


Someone bring in the flying pigs because I'm on her side. It's not offending anyone so let her wear the damn thing.

7/22/2007 12:05:17 PM


The school has a ban on jewelry unless "required" by the faith.

The plaintiffs did NOT challenge the legality of the rule, but instead argued that the Silver Ring fell under a religious requirement. The Court was correct.

Now, if they had challenged the school's rule for being an unnecessary stifling of student speech, then I'd be behind them.

7/22/2007 12:17:52 PM

The Watcher

I had to read the article for this one. The school says "No jewelry." She wanted to wear a ring.

Sorry kid, there's no "fundie exception" to the rule.

7/22/2007 12:31:58 PM

They don't want you to stop being Christian or to screw the first guy you see. They want you to respect a rule of the school that forbids jewels and religious symbols. If you want to be chaste and Christian, go ahead, you don't need a ring for that.

7/22/2007 1:30:07 PM


With the law of the veil, I have mixed feelings, but this girl is a real idiot. That stupid ring means nothing in itself and it's a little pretentious to say that it's a Christian requirement. If she was to remain abstinent, ok, but do like 99% of the girls who remain abstinent until married, who don't wear jewerls and make a show of it. It's not a Christian requirement and they're not forbidding you to express your faith or being a Christian. They want you to follow the rule of "no jewerly" that the school has. If you want to remain abstinent, why just don't do it?

7/22/2007 1:35:56 PM

Old Viking

Lydia is a contestant in the Fundy National Whining Championship competition.

7/22/2007 1:54:14 PM

Drakeal V2.0


I'm as against laws and rules as the next person(probably more so), but this is just silly.

7/22/2007 4:31:49 PM

John Lilburne

If the daft cow wants to wear a ring showing that she doesn't have sex, then she can get married like the rest of us!

7/22/2007 4:57:48 PM


I think the no jewelry rule is stupid, but there is no need to make an exception for her.

7/22/2007 7:27:36 PM

Doctor Whom

Explain to me again just who it is who demands special privileges based on sexual lifestyle choices.

7/22/2007 7:34:26 PM

1 2 3 | top: comments page