“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)
57 comments
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.
Faith is supposed to be personal.
Let's stop parading our beliefs, shall we?
People are getting tired of it.
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.
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.
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!
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
As I said before: This whole thing is stupid. The rule, the ring, ect. The slippery slope argument annoys the hell out of me, too, but not as much as "Lulz stoodints have kno wrights".
You’re supposed to pray in a closet and not showcase your beliefs for the world, you’re not supposed to wear it on your sleeve, or put it on display, or other clichés I can’t think of at the moment. So technically, jesus would be pissed at you for wearing it.
My thoughts:
A purity ring seems a bit silly to me, but its harmless.
The "no jewelry" rule also seems a bit silly to me. My suspicion is that its to prevent students from wearing ostentatious jewelry and, so the schools don't have to make a judgment call as to what qualifies as "ostentatious", they just ban all jewelry.
All that being said, as long as the "No Jewelry" rule is applied across the board, Miss Playfoot isn't being discriminated against.
Though doesn't "Lydia Playfoot" sound like a name out of the Harry Potter books?
There's a "no jewelry" rule, Lydia. Nothing in the Christian faith requires you to wear the ring; you just want special privileges. Most of the people I've met with these 'purity rings' use them as a visual for their religious superiority act, anyway. If you were really serious about abstaining, you'd simply not have sex. You don't need a piece of jewellery to remind you.
The Torture Troll: Actually, it's a troll that hijacked Dragon Keal's name (current speculation is that it's a T4Cer). The original Keal changed his handle, so he could distinguish himself from the idiot with the grudge.
No jewelry means no jewelry. I wasn't allowed to wear sandals at my school. If I'd put a little christian charm (like a little silver cross) on the strap and pled that it was a part of my faith, the school still would have said "no sandals." If you don't like the rules, find a new school.
This is total garbage, they should have never accepted the case in the first case, it should have been thrown out from day 1. I'm willing to be any amount of money that this girl was caught wearing the ring and made some shit up about what it meant. Seriously... if you need a ring to let everyone ELSE know you don't want to have sex? What ever happened to just saying, "no billy, I don't want to have sex". Then Billy will probably go find someone who will have sex but that's just the way young men are until they mentally mature*. And you don't have to run around trying to be exempt from rules because you think your imaginary sky-daddy makes you special. It does make you special... but not in the way you had hoped...
*This is obviously only a generalization and not true 100% of the time, some guys mature mentally faster than others.
I'm reminded at this juncture of someone else who paraded her virginity in public. A certain Miss B. Spears. Look what happened to her.
Lydia, to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to The Galaxy , I'd put your analyst on danger money.
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.
So... you're a devout Christian, and all you get from your religion is "don't screw until you're hitched"? Wooooow, you're... you're really paying attention in church, aren't you?
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.
This is just... remarkably, unbearably stupid. I wish to run around naked as an expression of my pagan faith not to be bound. If I do so, I shall be arrested for indecent exposure. Therefore I do not. It's not rocket science. It's not even politial science or social science. It's just plain common sense.
"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."
Yay! The quicker religion is out of UK schools the better. Thank you for your part in making this happen faster.
Someone needs to read Matthew 6:6. Purity rings are not described in the bible, but showy public pretenses of faith are described by Jesus, and discouraged. So tell us Lydia, if your relationship with god is as strong as you seem to think it is, why do you need to advertise it? Is it not a real relationship unless everyone knows about it and applauds you for it? That's a pretty shallow relationship.
Note: Her Father intended for her to be the "poster child" for the company, he & a U.S preacher set up, to sell said rings to teenagers at some £25 ($45) per ring, & incedentally make a tidy profit in the process...
"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."
Tell me about it. I mean I signed the pledge to "Kill everyone in the name of Cthulhu!" and my school still wouldn't let me wear my KEITNOC beanie or fire my Beretta 92 off in a random direction every hour.
If I make some stupid agreement with my god, schools should just have to make an exception to the rules just for me, right?
Because people who make promises to imaginary friends are 'special'.
Of course she does not need that ring to remind her.
The only reason for the court case was to get public attention for her fathers cause (he is part of the stupid ring movement).
In that, she has been extremely successful.
An all the other fundamentalists who don't see the true reasons can claim they suffer repression etc.
That is what the religious people really like: self-imposed suffering and presumed external pressure which justifies them in having strange beliefs.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
