| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| KSa |
Should she be allowed?
Source: telegraph.co.uk Needless to say I find the verdict of the court contemptible, to say the least. |
||||||
| Porthos |
IDK, it sure seems like they're applying a double standard if you ask me. | ||||||
| KSa |
I understand that lack of interest on this thread means that this matter is totally indifferent for you. | ||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
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. |
||||||
| Liz |
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? |
||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Oh I see... I thought that this was just some little silver ring on her finger intended to symbolise her decision not to have sex before marriage. | ||||||
| KSa |
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. |
||||||
| KSa |
I thought exactly the same. Honestly, I don't know what Liz meant so let's wait until some explanation, he he... |
||||||
| Liz |
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. |
||||||
| KSa |
What about if it was visible? How can such a thing like a chastity ring or anything affect your personal life? |
||||||
| KSa |
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. |
||||||
| Liz |
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. 
|
||||||
| KSa |
Don't worry, Liz! I hope that the exam went smoothly. |
||||||
| Liz |
Well, it did...I was talking less nonsense than I usually do.
|
||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
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. |
||||||
| Porthos |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_ring |
||||||
| Liz |
Yes, I have realised that I mixed it up with chastity belt.
|
||||||
| Loic |
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? |
||||||
| Deborah |
That thought occurred to me, too. |
||||||
| Uriel |
The chastity ring business has nothing to do with being a Christian. So it doesn't fall under the same protection.
And it strikes me as eminently silly to cling to one, anyway. If you don't want to have sex, don't open your legs. Jewelry has nothing to do with it. |
||||||
| KSa |
Who decides what has to do with being a Christian? Maybe for this girl this chastity ring is more precious than for others wearing a cross (it has also nothing to do with being a Christian, Jesus never said we should wear a cross). Following the same way of argumentation I can say that ostentatious gay parades have nothing to do with being gay. You are gay - fine, but don't go to the street to demonstrate it. |
||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The traditional purpose of Gay Pride is to campaign for gay rights and for the increased acceptance of homosexuals generally — as recently as 27 years ago in Scotland, I could easily have been sent to prison simply for engaging in sexual activity with other men. Of course, this arguably now largely a 'won' cause in Western Europe, but unfortunately this is not the case in much of the rest of the world. | ||||||
| Uriel |
Of course Jesus never said anything about wearing a cross. He himself didn't encounter one until the very end -- and then it was too late.
Who decides what has to do with being Christian -- or any other religion? Well, a very good question, KSa. My first reaction is of course to say accepted tradition, or the Church, or some other entity like culture or bibilical interpretation, but it occurs to me that those are simply customs that are only given the respect of being "graven in stone" by the combined weight of the centuries -- and, as you point out, may have little or nothing to do with the actual basis of the religion. Purdah is a good example -- the Koran does not actually command women to veil themselves; it mentions it, of course, because that was a common custom of the day, and so it has remained -- even though now it is thought to be a symbol of Islam and it fought in the courts as such. Much as the mention of slavery in the Bible -- a common practice in the middle east at the time -- was used by the Southern Baptists to justify slavery in the US. I suppose we could simply say that if you want to justify the wearing of a ring or a crucifix or a veil or a turban or any other outward symbol of your faith, you should have to deliver up some proof of that requirement in some original text. But on the other hand, texts can be contradictory or open to interpretation. Perhaps we should turn the question around, and ask why you think you need to wear any kind of "proof" of your religion, when your religion should really be mainly in your heart and mind. What is behind this need to "advertise" it to other people? Look at the Mormons. They wear their proof of their religion under their clothes, and it is supposed to be a secret thing that outsiders are never supposed to see. It is for God only. Or, perhaps, we should ask the question: why is any of this anyone else's business in the first place? If you choose to wear a yarmulka, or a veil, or rhinestone cross, or any other badge of identification, is that not your business and your choice? In the US, we often protect those rights -- and even those of skinheads and the KKK that really ARE offensive to most people -- under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. (Your gay parades would be covered under that as well, as the right to peaceably assemble.) Schoolchildren, however, do not have full rights under the Bill of Rights -- the ability of adults to curtail their actions and freedoms has been established in court. The ban on the wearing of gang colors has been protected, for example. And of course the US Bill of Rights does not pertain to any other country. My personal reaction to the wearing of a chastity ring would be to roll my eyes. I think they're stupid. I also think they're nothing new -- remember the virgin circle pins that were so popular a few decades ago? Think Animal House sorority girls. And I would laugh if anyone seriously equated them with the Bible. And with all the screwing of slave girls and handmaidens in the Bible, I would have a hard time taking that line of reasoning seriously anyway. However, I would also be inclined to say, that's your thing, you do it. Doesn't bother ME any. Why should I get to tell you what you can wear or what you can't? Get down with your bad self. I wore all kinds of crazy shit in high school, dyed my hair funny colors, and had piercing or tattooing been big back then (or legal, since I was underage), I'm sure I would have had those too -- the better to shock you with. So who am I to pass judgment now? |
||||||
| KSa |
... and I would turn the question around again and ask why there should be any restrictions on that in a free country. In the same way one should not allow people to "advertise" the kind of music they listen to: all haevy metal fans - go and have your hair cut! All people wearing any symbols which are the declarations of their beliefs, outlook, etc. should not be allowed: a peace sign for example. |
||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Do you think that school uniforms should not exist in 'free' countries then? |
||||||
| KSa |
I think that school uniforms are lesser of two evils. They help to maintain discipline and partially conceal social inequalities. |
||||||
| Uriel |
I despise the very concept of school uniforms. I would never have worn them. Thank god they were unknown in public shool when I was a kid! | ||||||
| Deborah |
I agree. Regimentation -- ugh. |
||||||
| Porthos |
You two have obviously never lived in the ghetto, the funky funky ghetto. 
When countless individuals are put in jeopardy because of the color of their clothes, or a particular logo or style, it's in everyone's best interest to avoid wearing any non-neutral clothing. Rates of violent attacks at schools who instituted uniforms decreased dramatically. The historical evidence speaks for itself. |
||||||
| KSa |
And this is the irrefutable argument, Porthos! |
||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I've never really given the issue of school uniforms much thought, to be honest. It's just the way it is here — wear correct school uniform to school, or be sent home until you come back in correct school uniform.
I've spent a few days in a school in France, and also a few days in a school in Poland, neither of which had a uniform. I can't say that I noticed any significant differences in behaviour there compared to my own school. |
||||||
| Porthos |
That's just because you went to upper-income schools. |
||||||
| Deborah |
I don't like the conformity of gang colors, either. | ||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Are you arguing that behaviour in British schools is better on average than in, say, American, French, German, Polish, Danish, Spanish (etc.) schools? |
||||||
| KSa |
Beginning with September this year, wearing school uniforms in Poland will be obligatory. |
||||||
| Liz |
How come and why now? Didn't you have to wear school gowns during the socialist régime at primary and secondary school? I utterly detest the very idea of wearing uniforms at school not because I'm against conformity and discipline. I'm not in favour of it because I think it's a mere formality and doesn't solve the problems it should solve. Your socioeconomic status will shine right through even if you wear a uniform - jewellery, hairstyle, bags, shoes, food (that you bring with you to school) can speak volumes of how well-off you are. School uniforms might help a little (but precious little) but I find school gowns that our parents and we (just for a short time) had to wear. They were absolutely senseless - dark blue gowns that look dreadful (I loved mine, though - it looked cool because my mum made it) but didn't cover much of our body and our clothes. What I find more senseless that in a certain British international school in Hungary there is a strange dress code - almost only jeans and collared shirts are accepted. What if you hate jeans and collared shirts? I had a similar expirience with this jeans-collared shirt thing. We were to do a performance on account of the 1956 Revolution. Our teacher found out that we were ought to wear blue jeans and a white collared shirt. I was in a big trouble because I didn't have either blue jeans or a white collared shirt. (I hated both.) Besides, I think it's stupid because blue jeans are not the appropriate clothing to wear on such an occassion but the woman said she couldn't accept, say, black jeans. She was profoundly shocked that I didn't have those pieces (she thought they were basic). So, I didn't perform. 
PS: The way I dress up is not necessarily what you would call decent, nevertheless, I've never had problems with discipline. Besides, when I have to dress up in a decent way, I do so. |
||||||
| KSa |
Why? The school discipline has dramatically worsened since 1989 and uniforms are one of the elements of the campaign to restore it. I had to wear the uniform until my 3-4th grade (mid 80s). Then the law was abolished (or at least it was not strictly executed) and I remember that since that time bad things had started. Even though it was during the socialist régime, when social inequalities were not so visible as they are now, children used to make sneer remarks on other pupils' clothes. I have mixed feelings. I was not fond of uniforms but on the other hands I don't think they could do any serious damage. The major argument against uniforms is that they suppress the individuality of children. However, I remember from my experience that the more sophisticated clothes or jewellery the kids wore the less interesting they were in terms of personality, wisdom or intelectual inclinations. This is of course my private and subjective judgment. |
||||||
| Uriel |
Whatever. There was a big push to institute school uniforms in public schools here a few years back, using just that logic (southern NM is pretty poor and we have gangs). It wasn't completely mandatory -- parents could override it if they wished, with a signed note -- but the idea was that poor parents wouldn't have to go broke buying school clothes, violence would decrease, etc. etc. It's been fizzling ever since. Just never got popular. 
From the local paper (Anthony has one of the higher rates of gang activity in the area, and Gadsden is known for being a tough place to go to school): Anthony school uniforms hit snag By Diana M. Alba Article Launched: 08/01/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT LAS CRUCES - Students at Gadsden Middle School in Anthony don't have to start wearing uniforms - at least not yet. Board members for the Gadsden Independent School District decided Monday night not to implement a uniforms policy, a move that had been requested by the school's principal because of escalating gang violence in the community. Gadsden schools spokesman Arturo Ruiloba said the board decided against the measure because it didn't think it could legally override the district's existing uniform policy, which requires surveys be sent to parents. "They just decided to follow the policy as stated," he said. Ruiloba said Gadsden Middle School officials will soon send out the required surveys. To implement uniforms, 75 percent of the surveys must be completed and returned, and two-thirds of responses must be in favor of uniforms. Four elementary schools and one Santa Teresa middle school in the Gadsden district already require uniforms. Gadsden Middle School Principal David Garcia had proposed students wear khaki pants with white tops. Ruiloba said some parents opposed the move because they wouldn't have had much time to buy new uniforms. Others said they'd already purchased school clothing for the year. Gang-related violence in Anthony is suspected to have been behind two homicides, as well as several drive-by shootings and other stabbings in recent months. Law enforcement officials told Anthony residents during a forum last week that certain colors, styles and brands of clothes are worn by teens to signify their involvement in a particular gang. School board President Maria Saenz estimated as many as 200 people attended the Monday meeting at Gadsden Middle School. The crowd packed the school's cafeteria, she said. Saenz, whose district includes the Mesquite and Vado area, said the board believed it had to adhere to existing policy. "We didn't want to violate state law," she said. "We try very hard to follow rules and regulations ..., plus the fact is we really want the community to have input." Anthony resident Nancy Castro, 26, didn't attend Monday's meeting, but said she hopes both Gadsden Middle School and Gadsden High School move to uniforms. Castro, whose children are in elementary school, said older students often influence younger ones. "If parents are allowing their kids to dress the way they do, they're asking for (trouble)," she said. Saenz said she favors school uniforms at the elementary school and middle school level because they add structure to a child's life. "I think it helps students learn more discipline," she said. "We live in a very chaotic world. ..." School board member Craig Ford, who represents Chaparral, said the board would have taken the wrong step if it had gone against its existing policy for implementing uniforms. "The board did exactly what they were supposed to do," he said. "It was a good meeting that didn't take any action that was contrary to our policy; the process will go forward." Ruiloba said the district also can't legally implement a new uniform policy until the year after surveys are sent out. So the earliest a policy could be in place is January 2008, he said. Some 930 students attend Gadsden Middle School. |
||||||
| Porthos |
No, I'm not talking about the national level. I'm speaking about individual schools. The argument in favor of uniforms is usually centered around controlling gang violence. So the push for uniforms is most often limited to gang-infested areas, like low-income communities. Middle-class and affluent communities rarely enforce school uniform policies, because they don't have a rampant gang problem. The schools you've always attended don't have gang problems, so most likely, you would not notice any clearly discernable difference in student behavior between your school and the schools without uniforms in France and Poland. That's what I was saying. |
||||||