Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Should she be allowed?
Quote:
We face a moral crisis, says chastity ring girl
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:51am BST 23/06/2007
A teenage girl took her school to the High Court yesterday claiming it had discriminated against her Christian faith by banning her from wearing a "purity ring".
Lydia Playfoot, 16, told the court in London that she had been unlawfully prevented from wearing the silver ring, which symbolised her belief in chastity before marriage.
She warned that other girls are facing "an ethical and moral crisis" because of a lack of guidance.
Miss Playfoot was challenging the decision by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to ban her and a number others from wearing the rings because the jewellery was not allowed under the uniform code.
She argued that the school let Muslim and Sikh pupils wear headscarfs and religious bracelets. Miss Playfoot claimed the school did not afford equal rights to Christians.
In a written statement, she said: "Many teachers are aware of the ethical and moral crisis among young people who are not given any direction. Sexual problems among the girls are not uncommon."
Miss Playfoot said that since she had been at the school a number of pupils had become pregnant.
She added: "Students have been allowed to wear nose rings, ear rings, tongue studs, badges and have dyed hair."
She claimed that the uniform policy was not consistently enforced.
But Leon Nettley, the headmaster, denied there had been any discrimination, saying that the purity ring was not a Christian symbol, and not required to be worn.
In his statement, he said that a Muslim girl had been permitted to wear a headscarf "as it was understood this was considered to be a requirement of her faith". Two Sikh girls had been allowed to wear a Kara bangle on a similar basis.
The judicial review, backed by the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, is seen by many Christians as an important test of their religious rights in an increasingly secular society.
Paul Diamond, appearing for Miss Playfoot, argued that the school governors were violating her right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Jonathan Auburn, appearing for the school governors, argued there had been no interference with Miss Playfoot's fundamental religious rights as wearing the purity ring did not involve "a manifestation" of her Christian belief. Even if there was interference with her rights, it was "justified and proportionate", given the legitimate aim of the uniform policy - "the promotion of allegiance, discipline, cohesion and equality within the school", he said.
The purity rings originate from the Silver Ring Thing movement, which started in the United States. A judgement is expected in four to six weeks.
Source: telegraph.co.uk
Needless to say I find the verdict of the court contemptible, to say the least.
A 'chastity ring' (something I'd never even heard of until I read this) is not a religious requirement for that girl.
This cannot be placed into the same category as Islamic headscarves, Sikh turbans and Sikh bangles, which are religious requirements for many people — or more accurately, many Muslims and Sikhs believe that they are religious requirements.
Like many schools here, the school probably has a policy to 'tolerate' Islamic and Sikh religious garments, even though they might not technically be part of school uniform. But that's usually as far as it goes, although if there is a genuine reason why a pupil or their parent(s)/guardian(s) believe that they must dress in some other way for religious reasons at school, then something can usually be arranged.
A 'chastity ring' (something I'd never even heard of until I read this) is not a religious requirement for that girl.
Chastity rings were only used in the Middle Ages and I thought they had long been banned. To me, it implies that the person in question wouldn't resist the temptation if she wasn't wearing the ring. Therefore, wearing a chastity ring has always been something that you are forced to wear and I could never imagine how someone can willfully and gladly accept that, let alone stick to it.
I agree with Benjamin that chastity rings are not religious symbols like crosses, Fatma hands, David stars, veils, turbans, kippahs etc. Well, they are but they aren't necessary - I know lots of Christians but neither of them wear chastity rings. Even my profoundly religious grandmother would look askance at me or any of her granddaughters if we were wearing them.
PS: How did they notice that she were wearing it? Is underwear scrutiny par for the course in that school? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:04 pm; edited 2 times in total
Chastity rings were only used in the Middle Ages and I thought they had long been banned. To me, it implies that the person in question wouldn't resist the temptation if she wasn't wearing the ring. Therefore, wearing a chastity ring has always been something that you are forced to wear and I could never imagine how someone can willfully and gladly accept that, let alone stick to it.
It's totally irrelevant what you or other people believe or imagine. In free countries everyone should have right to wear whatever they wish as long as they don't offend anyone (i.e. no to t-shirts with rascist remarks, etc.) or they are recognizable (i.e no to face covers, etc.).
I don't care if they vow not to have sex before marriage or to have sex 10 times a day before marriage or have sex before marriage and cease after marriage. They are free people. They don't do anything that would make other people feel hurt or excluded.
It's totally irrelevant what you or other people believe or imagine. In free countries everyone should have right to wear whatever they wish as long as they don't offend anyone (i.e. no to t-shirts with rascist remarks, etc.) or they are recognizable (i.e no to face covers, etc.).
I don't care if they vow not to have sex before marriage or to have sex 10 times a day before marriage or have sex before marriage and cease after marriage. They are free people. They don't do anything that would make other people feel hurt or excluded.
I know, I accept it and it's none of my business. More precisely, it's none of anyone's business. It is not visible and I don't really see how they could notice it. She should be allowed to wear it if she wants to and isn't forced to do so by her parents. It was only my personal, thus entirely subjective remark that I find the idea of choosing to wear a chastity ring bizarre.
Oh, KSa...cross post. So, for the uninitiated: chastity rings are *not* rings that you wear on your fingers. It's a ring around your privates that physically prevents you from having sex. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Oh, KSa...cross post. So, for the uninitiated: chastity rings are *not* rings that you wear on your fingers. It's a ring around your privates that physically prevents you from having sex.
In that case it was not a chastity ring according to your definition because what she was wearing was a normal ring that you wear on your finger.
In that case it was not a chastity ring according to your definition because what she was wearing was a normal ring that you wear on your finger.
Oh dear...then the article is deceptive. It's not a chastity ring but a ring symbolising chastity. So, if it's a normal finger ring, what's the problem with that?
Aaaaaaaarrrgh...I mixed it up with chastity belt! LOL! Better go home and sleep. Medieval history does me no good. (I had an exam today.)
I was wondering how long you were wiling to tolerate me writing nonsense on this forum. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
In that case it was not a chastity ring according to your definition because what she was wearing was a normal ring that you wear on your finger.
Oh dear...then the article is deceptive. It's not a chastity ring but a ring symbolising chastity. So, if it's a normal finger ring, what's the problem with that?
Aaaaaaaarrrgh...I mixed it up with chastity belt! LOL! Better go home and sleep. Medieval history does me no good. (I had an exam today.)
I was wondering how long you were wiling to tolerate me writing nonsense on this forum.
Don't worry, Liz! I hope that the exam went smoothly.
It's totally irrelevant what you or other people believe or imagine. In free countries everyone should have right to wear whatever they wish as long as they don't offend anyone (i.e. no to t-shirts with rascist remarks, etc.) or they are recognizable (i.e no to face covers, etc.).
I don't care if they vow not to have sex before marriage or to have sex 10 times a day before marriage or have sex before marriage and cease after marriage. They are free people. They don't do anything that would make other people feel hurt or excluded.
I don't disagree with this. However, this event took place in a British school, and British schools almost always have a uniform — thus, one does not have the right to wear whatever one wishes in a British school providing that it doesn't not offend anyone. Chastity rings are apparently considered incorrect school uniform in that school.
I'm not saying that I agree with the idea of school uniforms; I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
Oh dear...then the article is deceptive. It's not a chastity ring but a ring symbolising chastity. So, if it's a normal finger ring, what's the problem with that?
Oh dear...then the article is deceptive. It's not a chastity ring but a ring symbolising chastity. So, if it's a normal finger ring, what's the problem with that?
I think wearing the chastity ring as a visible manifestation of her maidenhood is not a really good idea. For one, it might actually encourage some boys to treat her as a challenge and to embark upon a quest to make nonsense out of her desire to be chaste.
Do I make ample sense? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject:
Loic wrote:
I think wearing the chastity ring as a visible manifestation of her maidenhood is not a really good idea. For one, it might actually encourage some boys to treat her as a challenge and to embark upon a quest to make nonsense out of her desire to be chaste.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
