Quote: Originally Posted by Reuters LONDON - A teen-ager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her commitment to virginity lost a High Court fight against the ban Monday. Lydia Playfoot, 16, says her silver ring is an expression of her faith and had argued in court that it should be exempt from school regulations banning the wearing of jewelry. "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," Playfoot said in a statement. "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." Playfoot's legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils. Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools. Playfoot's parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, a religious group which urges abstinence among young people. Those who sign up wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4," a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin." During the case, Playfoot's lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, West Sussex, breached her human rights to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry. They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith. Playfoot said in her statement she would consult her legal team to consider whether to appeal.

Not quite a bong hit for Jesus, but let's talk about religion and _______ (fill in the blank).

Why is it that people of ANY religious group as well as Atheists feel that their needs supersede those of the rest of the population?

Don't know about the folks across the pond, but here in the states we have a bit in our constitution that says the government shall not establish a religion, which based on court challenges handed down over the years has prevented prayer in schools, etc...

But you have to ask yourself why religions (most recently fundamentalist Christian types) are constantly trying to push these boundaries?

I can't believe they are so ignorant that they don't understand the implications of the separation clause and the judicial rulings to date. So why do they constantly try?

You want a religiously skewed education for your spawn? Send 'em to a religious school, because they aren't going to (and shouldn't) get one at a public school.

A purity ring IS NOT integral to any beliefs, and the judge made the right call, but the cojones the girl's lawyer must have to claim that the ban violated her "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" is simply preposterous.

Were that true, without her special ring on she must instantly turn into the school slut.

I'd be willing to bet:
A-Nobody wants to deflower her in the first place
B-She's going to lose it before marriage anyway
C-She's going to turn her purity ring into a funky naval piercing.

/signed

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby Not quite a bong hit for Jesus, but let's talk about religion and _______ (fill in the blank). Why is it that people of ANY religious group as well as Atheists feel that their needs supersede those of the rest of the population?

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby But you have to ask yourself why religions (most recently fundamentalist Christian types) are constantly trying to push these boundaries? I can't believe they are so ignorant that they don't understand the implications of the separation clause and the judicial rulings to date. So why do they constantly try?

I can answer all those questions... Quite simply because people, in general, are buttheads.

But seriously, people, in general, are comfortable with the familiar. Therefore they are afraid of things, people, and beliefs that are different. When it comes to religion, the stronger their belief, the stronger their fears and therefore their desire to make everyone believe as they do. This has been a common thread throughout recorded history.

Why did Alexander the Great conqueror the known world? It wasn't just to get the natural resources, but to impose his will and beliefs on other people who were different. Why did the Pharaoh enslave the Jews, because they were different and would not change their beliefs to match his. Why did Hitler do what he did? Because the Jews, gypsys, and so forth were different.

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby You want a religiously skewed education for your spawn? Send 'em to a religious school, because they aren't going to (and shouldn't) get one at a public school. A purity ring IS NOT integral to any beliefs, and the judge made the right call, but the cojones the girl's lawyer must have to claim that the ban violated her "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" is simply preposterous. Were that true, without her special ring on she must instantly turn into the school slut. I'd be willing to bet: A-Nobody wants to deflower her in the first place B-She's going to lose it before marriage anyway C-She's going to turn her purity ring into a funky naval piercing.

I agree with you on all these points.

Quote: "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."

AWWWW... Christananity will have to follow the same rules as the rest of the religions

Another victory for the seperation of church and state. It's good to see some positive action from the judicial system, even if it's across the pond.

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby I'd be willing to bet: A-Nobody wants to deflower her in the first place B-She's going to lose it before marriage anyway C-She's going to turn her purity ring into a funky naval piercing.

I laughed hard on that one.

Look a little ring isn't going to change a thing. It is a personal choice and the reason to wear it is so either A. You draw attention to your self or B. You get guys to look and say hmmm Virgin w00t for the deflower. Either way I say if you choose to stay a virgin till marriage then wearing the ring probably won't help you make it that long.

That ring is a bulls-eye. Make sure you read about the studies.

BTW, separation of church and state is not a law. It's only a religious doctrine derived from an interpretation of the First Amendment. An interpretation that many people think is incredibly skewed.

what ping lord said.

Warning: about to launch into a rant, I might piss off someone, and I'm sorry. But you asked for discussion on this, so...

Why do you care what she wears? I honestly can't believe you guys think that the government letting a school tell a young girl that she can't wear a ring is a good thing. This shouldn't even be an issue.

BTW, to anyone who thinks separation of church and state, if that is even a valid legal concept in this country (see below), even remotely applies to the fact patterns in this case the way you say it does, what is your justification? I don't see it!?

Besides, and this is important, freedom of religion as many people interpret it today is not in the constitution. In fact, it probably greatly oversteps the boundaries that the founding fathers intended for the constitution! The ONLY thing the constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Guess what? That protects religion from the state, NOT THE STATE FROM RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Notice it only says what congress cannot do, not what what religions cannot do. Huge misconception that is sadly very misunderstood today. From how I read it, the only thing that can be gathered from the First Amendment is that Congress can't do what the British government did, and most certainly not that they should.

Some dude at my middle school wore a pentagram necklace to school every day, and nobody made him take it off. I don't particularly like it, but it didn't affect me in a negative way so who am I to tell him to take it off?

So glad this wasn't in the US, why does government feel it needs to control every tiny aspect of peoples lives?

For the record, I don't even particularly like abstinence rings or the premise of wearing one, I think it promotes an unchristian "holier than thou" attitude and serves no real purpose. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not she should be allowed to do it. Don't let your negative views of Christianity skew the real issue here. Also, personal attacks on a girl you don't even know, and predictions about how she will "probably" turn out are in bad taste and show a complete lack of respect for the actual issue. If that is the kind of support you are offering for your position, then your bias against Christianity or religion in general is clearly preventing you from considering the actual legal issue and making a sound conclusion.

/rant

What if you're married, is a marrige ring a sign of christianity?

And besides the ban of jewelry was to stop the excessive piercings and outrageous necklaces and bracelets, a fricken ring (one that ever high school issues around there sophmore year, yea what hypocrits) isn't going to show off your different side.

Now I see it from both sides of the story, but the media definately pushed the religious part too much. Wasn't the whole case about no jewelry anyhow?

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n Why do you care what she wears? I honestly can't believe you guys think that the government letting a school tell a young girl that she can't wear a ring is a good thing. This shouldn't even be an issue.

Schools, at least in the US, are allowed to have dress codes. This is something that has been fought over time and time again and every time it lands firmly on the side of the school, even public schools, being able to dictate, within reason, what students can wear to school. So if the school says no jewelry that is the end of the argument.

This particular case was someone trying to use religion as an excuse to wear a ring. A ring which really has nothing to do with religion and more to do with morals. To that end, the court did the right thing. It upheld the school's authority to dictate a dress code that is applied equally to every student.

There have been several cases in Europe over the past few years involving things similar to this as far as students wearing veils and other religious garb, and the courts in both France and England have always sided with the schools.

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n BTW, to anyone who thinks separation of church and state, if that is even a valid legal concept in this country (see below), even remotely applies to the fact patterns in this case the way you say it does, what is your justification? I don't see it!?

I agree, this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, it is simply about following the rules put forth by the school.

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n Besides, and this is important, freedom of religion as many people interpret it today is not in the constitution. In fact, it probably greatly oversteps the boundaries that the founding fathers intended for the constitution! The ONLY thing the constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Guess what? That protects religion from the state, NOT THE STATE FROM RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Notice it only says what congress cannot do, not what what religions cannot do. Huge misconception that is sadly very misunderstood today. From how I read it, the only thing that can be gathered from the First Amendment is that Congress can't do what the British government did, and most certainly not that they should.

I never thought of it that way. But even still, as I said, this case has nothing to do with religion. The girl and her family tried to make it a religious issue.

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n Some dude at my middle school wore a pentagram necklace to school every day, and nobody made him take it off. I don't particularly like it, but it didn't affect me in a negative way so who am I to tell him to take it off?

I wore a 3" cross earing to school when I was in 11th grade (back in 1985), upside down. Nobody told me to take it off and a few of my teachers even used it as a starting point for some lively discussion and lessons on freedom of religion and such.

And for the record, that wasn't really a rant. You didn't curse anyone out, make derogatory or racist comments, or even use any sterotypes.

I believe if she wants to where her mini chastity belt then let her if thats inportant too her!
but then i also think that bruiser across the room who wants to wear a mokawk hair cut, then let him! etc see where this is going?
i can understand totally that peoples faiths shouldn't be controlled by those in power but then if they are allowed 'exemption' from the rules then other kids are gonna try to cash in on this!!
And in all fairness should be allowed to express their 'religeon' or 'culture' as much as the girl who wants to wear her 'purity' ring!
Anyway, if she so strongly believes she should be allowed to wear her ring to express her beliefs then shouldn't the class 'Bicycle' be allowed to wear her short skirt and lippy as an expression of her beliefs??? ( of course this is something i strongly am against!! )

I'm on the fence on this one, you're never gonna keep everyone involved 'happy' on a topic like this!!

Quote: Originally Posted by s1ugh34d What if you're married, is a marrige ring a sign of christianity?

A wedding band is not only in Christianity, and it's not even religious anymore.

What I left out of my post is that this ring has truly nothing what-so-ever to do with her religion. She wanted to wear that ring as a way of letting everyone know hat she thinks she's better than they are (IMHO).

I liken this case to a school having a dress code and one of the students wearing an unapproved outfit (which is really what it is). In the United States, the public schools have the right to limit the students rights, since, rightly so, children do not have the same rights as adults. This limitation of freedom is for the students' protection. If students are permitted to wear whatever they want, then you get gang affiliation identification and I'd have been rather upset (if not dead) if I walked into a gang war in the middle of my high school.

Btw, a wedding ring is no longer an entirely religious symbol, it is also a personal declaration of commitment. There are some careers where OSHA prohibits / strongly cautions against (not certain about the prohibition) wearing jewelry. I've not heard of a lawsuit since it really is for safety, just like this dress code might be. The truth is the article was extremely biased towards to girls side in that it emphasized the ring as a religious symbol and not a dress code violation. (diatribe over)

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n Besides, and this is important, freedom of religion as many people interpret it today is not in the constitution. In fact, it probably greatly oversteps the boundaries that the founding fathers intended for the constitution! The ONLY thing the constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Guess what? That protects religion from the state, NOT THE STATE FROM RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Notice it only says what congress cannot do, not what what religions cannot do. Huge misconception that is sadly very misunderstood today.

You do have the verbiage of the Constitution correct, but as I mentioned in my post, due to numerous rulings of courts, we have the present interpretation of this clause. The legal system we have here in this country (with the exception of Louisiana) is based on the the British form of common law and Stare Decisis which gives weight to previous judicial rulings on matters in addition to the letter of the law. Whether or not you believe the founding fathers intended this present understanding when they wrote that is up to you & Constitutional scholars.

Refer to wiki

Your religion, or lack thereof, is your personal choice and that choice and anything related to that choice should not be imposed upon me & my personal choice.

Which, when you think about it, is EXACTLY the point you made when you say "That protects religion from the state."

By preventing prayer in public schools, the government it preventing Christian prayer being forced upon those of a non-Christian faith.

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby You do have the verbiage of the Constitution correct, but as I mentioned in my post, due to numerous rulings of courts, we have the present interpretation of this clause. The legal system we have here in this country (with the exception of Louisiana) is based on the the British form of common law and Stare Decisis which gives weight to previous judicial rulings on matters in addition to the letter of the law. Whether or not you believe the founding fathers intended this present understanding when they wrote that is up to you & Constitutional scholars.

I understand that, and I figured that is what you would say. I should have addressed it my post. I understand that the court has frequently interpreted it that way, but I simply disagree with the court's interpretation. I realize that that does not change the fact that what the court says is the law, but I hope that someday the interpretations from the court will start to lean in the other direction. My basic point was that it seems to me that the interpretation they have taken oversteps the bounds of what the founding fathers originally intended for that clause to mean.

Of course, none of the US court's rulings has any effect on this incident since it was in England, but for discussion's sake it warrants a closer examination since most of us (I would guess) are American.

I have more to say but I gotta go back to work, I'll revisit tonight.

Just wanted to throw my $.02 in on the "Church and State" bit. See if it shines at least a different light than most use to look at this situation . . .

In a country with as diverse a spread of religious beliefs, hell, on our PLANET with the diversity of beliefs, to have ANY government being directed/coerced/influenced by ANY religion is an atrocity waiting to happen. Someone is going to do or say something that offends someone else, and especially today, it's going to end up a fight in the legal system, and whoever wins ends up dictating the next round of laws based on their beliefs . . . Which will in turn end up upsetting someone else . . . so on and so forth.

Just because you are Christian/Muslim/Wiccan doesn't mean you get to legislate your beliefs upon me. If you disagree with the fact that there are things happening in this world that go against your beliefs, you suck it up like a grownup and realize that this is the REAL world and there's nothing you can do to change it.

Anyone who is going into politics should understand this first and foremost - you go to represent ALL of the people in your area, not just the people who happened to vote for you. If there is a law that is being voted on that you don't agree with based on your religion, but the voters from your home area want you to pass it, you swallow your ill feelings and do what your 'bosses' tell you to do. You know, like you agreed to do when you took the office.

Ah, but who the hell am I trying to kid . . . that'd be a perfect world.

d

I think it is important to understand, though, that this argument goes both ways. We most definitely want to keep the government from legislating religion on people of other religions and the non religious. That's what the constitution says, and that's the way it should be. But we also have to be careful not to legislate non-religion on the religious. This is the purpose of the free exercise clause.

This girl believes that this ring is a symbol of her religion. Just because your view of Christianity, or even the view of some Christians, says that it is not a "religious symbol" does not mean it is not to her. As long as reasonable accommodations can be made without any undue hardship, and they pretty clearly can (its just a small ring for goodness sake), then why should the government get to stop her?

Quote: Originally Posted by 4rm4g3dd0n I think it is important to understand, though, that this argument goes both ways. We most definitely want to keep the government from legislating religion on people of other religions and the non religious. That's what the constitution says, and that's the way it should be. But we also have to be careful not to legislate non-religion on the religious. This is the purpose of the free exercise clause. This girl believes that this ring is a symbol of her religion. Just because your view of Christianity, or even the view of some Christians, says that it is not a "religious symbol" does not mean it is not to her. As long as reasonable accommodations can be made without any undue hardship, and they pretty clearly can (its just a small ring for goodness sake), then why should the government get to stop her?

The reason she's getting stopped isn't because she's exercising her religion by doing this. She's using her religion as a way of getting special dispensation from a rule that bars ALL jewelry. Period. She's not being harmed in anyway at all by this. She's trying to play the 'Oh Poor Oppressed Me!' card with this by using the religious aspect. That's ALL it is.

This is one of those cases where EVERYONE gets treated the same regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual preference or color, and someone HAS to go and pull the religion card.

Doesn't float with me. Because if she gets to wear the ring, she won't get to complain if someone who's a practicing Satanist comes in wearing a desecrated crucifix.

Does this get you to where I'm looking from? Cause I really can't say it any plainer. It's not about forcing someone's belief or non belief. It's about what's Fair (Remember, fairness never really is. It's simply a level playing field.) and what's Right (Don't go wearing any jewelry because the powers in charge say you can't.).

d

If she were in the US, she wouldn't have ANY constitutional rights as she is a minor and case law states that the school system has the authority to mandate a dress code (among other things). Since she is in the UK, once again she has no reason to expect that she can usurp the schools authority to put a dress code in place and thusly enforce it. Especially if they don't permit gowns and veils, as required by the Muslim faith, to be worn.

Quote: Originally Posted by Peng Lord That ring is a bulls-eye. Make sure you read about the studies.

I actually went out with a girl who said she wanted to wait. After we broke up, she hooked up with someone else, had sex and then got pregnant. Infact, she got preggers twice (probably a third time too), but both were mischarages. According to her, The condom burst... Twice? Keep dreaming hun.