"Purity ring" schoolgirl goes to UK High Court

[NashVegas]

Source: Reuters

A teenage schoolgirl will appeal to Britain's High Court on Friday to overturn a ban on her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her decision to abstain from sex before marriage.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, from West Sussex, says the silver ring is an expression of her faith and should be exempt from the school's rules on wearing jewelry.

Lydia Playfoot's parents help run the British arm of the U.S. campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, which promotes abstinence among young people.

Lydia's father, Phil Playfoot, said his daughter's case was part of a wider cultural trend towards Christians being "silenced".

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL2210625920070622

---

It's not enough they have to spread the "we're being persecuted!" crap at home, they have to spread it everywhere.

[meegbear]

1. Last time I checked, rings were jewelry ...

Ornaments, such as bracelets, necklaces, or rings, made of precious metals set with gems or imitation gems.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jewelry

Find for the defendant. Call the next case, Oasis v. Beatles.

[Hobarticus]

17. I second that notion...

That being said, it is PLENTY creepy to pledge your virginity to your daddy. Ewwwww....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

87. no no no!

Rings are jewelry when worn by heathen, pagan-loving, anti-christian, terra-ists.
Rings are NOT jewelry when being displayed to show poppy's love for a daughter's intact hymen and underused vaginal canal.

see the difference? It is so OBVIOUS.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Wear the ring daughter so we can whine about being silenced

when the school insists on enforcing their policy about jewelry which has nothing to do with our religion but we have to make a point.

Help me out here but isn't that ring advertising that tells prospective horn dogs that "I won't fuck you but I'll suck you, ergo remaining a "virgin." What will those wacky silenced christians think of next?

[soothsayer]

5. Ewww, they won't necessarily do that. Gross!

[johnlal]

11. Not after they get married, am I right guys?

[Habibi]

36. ...

:rofl:

[LiberalFighter]

38. Or make it easier for guys to find virgins

[johnlal]

46. Or avoid them.

[LeftyMom]

67. Those things scream "techinical virgin"

Y'know what most of them are good for? Something about five steps up the perv scale from a blowjob, that's what.

[DuaneBidoux]

72. On that note...

This is going to sound hard to believe but there was an entire generation of people who actually did grow up believing that if it wasn't intercourse it wasn't sex.

This was especially true in the most conservative areas. I found out that my own parents (fundies) gave each other massive amounts of oral sex before they were married and my parents had always told me they were virgins when they married.

I don't know if Clinton actually believed it himself (I suspect not) when he told the court "I have not had sex with that girl" but I don't put it, knowing what I know about my own parents who are a similar age, out of the realm of possibility.

[tanyev]

4. Bet if they thought they could get away with making their girls wear chastity belts, they'd do it.

[MuseRider]

6. Or cover them from head to toe

and never let them out of the house with the painted windows. You bet they would.

[Ferretherder]

65. You know what I think is behind this crap?...

...all these 'daddies' remember how THEY were when THEY were young and 'lookin' for love', and it HORRIFIES them to think that their daughters might meet up with someone like THEY WERE!

...just sayin'.

[entanglement]

68. LOL - that is probably right

[Javaman]

7. I give 2-1 odds she's not a virgin a year from now. nt

[Barrett808]

8. I wouldn't take that bet. n/t

[BOSSHOG]

39. She's probably not a virgin now but she is forgiven

[OnionPatch]

120. LOL!

:spray:

[MrPrax]

9. Try a 'purity belly ring'...teacher can't see that, rebeln/t

[johnlal]

10. This is a "free expression" matter.

She seems to have a legitimate reason why she would want to wear the ring. I think she should be allowed to wear it.
I don't really have any sympathy for the evangelical movement that's pushing the "victim" line, but if one girl wants to wear a silver ring around her finger to promote virginity, who does it really hurt?

[NashVegas]

12. No, It's a School Policy Matter

It she wants, she can tattoo herself or wear a t-shirt with the proclamation. But the school policy bans jewelry.


And the funny thing about it? Boys love shiney things. Her ring may as well express: "I'm a big tease."

[johnlal]

13. It just seems like in this case, the school policy doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't it seem like the policy is overly broad? I can see why they wouldn't want kids to wear valuable jewelry to class, or something that might hurt them during sports or Physical Education, but what possible purpose is there to ban a simple silver ring? I side with the girl on this one.

[marshall]

Image of the offensive ring

[dipsydoodle]

19. I thought the idea was

that she gripped it tight between her knees. :rofl:

[johnlal]

22. That's a good one!

:)

[johnlal]

31. OOOOH! That looks subversive!

Do you think the faculty and staff are also told not to wear their engagement rings or wedding rings to school?

[NashVegas]

15. It Doesn't Matter

The school has the authority to set policy. Furthermore, I would argue, this is not religious expression, but religious commercialism/promotion. Where is there a historical religious basis or scriptures for the basis of wearing the ring?

[Solo_in_MD]

18. UK schools are quite a bit more authoritarian than the US

Gets the proles in the proper mindset sooner

[northzax]

66. well, making exceptions just makes life harder

who can determine what is 'too valuable' or gang related, or anything? better to ban it all. jewelry is not a neccesity for education, so let it go.

[lastliberalintexas]

102. Armbands protesting war are not needed for education either

Would you really have sided with the Des Moines schools against the Tinker plaintiffs?

[OnionPatch]

121. Me too.

It's a simple ring that is not going to hurt anyone else or even distract them. I believe there should be exceptions to rules in most cases like these. JMO.

[JoDog]

20. Story is unclear

about whether the school allows students to wear any religious symbols in the form of jewelry. Some schools in Britain will allow students to wear things like crucifixes, stars of David and pentacles, but ask that the students keep them underneath their clothing in order to promote a uniform dress code and keep students from discriminating against and harassing each other.

But, even if the school allows religious symbols, an arguement could be made that the girl's purity ring doesn't count as such. It is not an official symbol of any branch of Christianity. It is the symbol of a specific agreement promoted by a subsect of one particular group of Christians. While the cross is the symbol of Christianity, the purity ring is not. In fact, an arguement could be made that he purity ring isn't necessarily exclusive to Christianity either. It is possible that non-Christian girls could make similar pledges and ask to wear a ring as a symbol of that.

I look at it like the difference between a Jew wearing a Star of David (which Jews accept as a common symbol) and wearing various kabbalistic symbols. While some Jews do believe in kabbalah, it is by no means a univeral feature of the faith. And there are plenty of non-Jews who believe in and practice kabbalah and embrace no part of mainstream Jewish practice. So while the Star of David is an official religious symbol and could be allowed, a school might be allowed to restrict kabbalistic symbols such as tree of life or red string amulets.

[Igel]

70. They allow Sikhs to wear "kara bracelets",

iron bracelets that are a sign that the Sikh in question has bound himself to the Guru. Token shackle, it would appear.

Hijabs are but headwear, but they're allowed to be worn.

There are a number of instances where groups within a "religion" have trouble. For instance, the Xian church I was in was strict in not eating unclean foods, about keeping the Sabbath and OT holy days, and a number of other things (both positive and negative). But it was also a very small church, under 500 people worldwide, with no more than 4 or 5 people in some states. It was incorporated officially in Canada/BC, Oregon, and Switzerland. The schools in all three often ignored letters from the ministers asking for kids to be allowed off for religious observance, to not attent Xmas or Halloween parties, and the like. And they were often completely ignored because the church wasn't incorporated in their state or country. No officially recognized, no rights. Had we said we were Jewish--a lie--life would have been much easier.

The church I was in has split into factions and I'm not in any of them. My son's being raised in my 'religion', even if I'm unchurched. So if he goes to public school and he needs off for Pentecost, he won't have a leg to stand on. Unorthodox, Pentecost on a Monday. No officially recognized church, now or ever, in Texas.

But, no matter. A faith without a hierarchy isn't a faith at all, and unless some rich minister or preacher can vouch for it--or threaten death for XXXphobia--there's no beliefs at issue. After all, we need government to decide what we can believe, if we believe, how serious our beliefs should be taken.

[Bridget Burke]

117. And this case was designed to attract the xenophobes--among others....

The Silver Ring Thing in the UK just happens to be based out of Mr Playfoot's church.

www.silverringthing.org.uk/aboutus_ukteam.asp#PhilPlayf...

And I didn't know this:

The Silver Ring Thing program received more than $1 million from the U.S. government for its abstinence education work until funding was discontinued in 2006....

"Lydia really is in many ways a microcosm of something much bigger that's happening in our culture, where in the (United Kingdom), Christians' views and values are being sidelined," he said. "You're basically being told, 'You can believe what you like, but don't let it impact into the public sphere.'"

www.christianpost.com/article/20070624/28137_British_Co...

Religious right groups in the UK paid the legal fees.

[TheBaldyMan]

118. no its a dishonest attempt to appear 'persecuted'`

btw it's Britain and I don't want fundamentalist Christians pushing their Victorian morality in a publically funded school. That's what it is - it's not a freedom of expression issue it's a repression of any morality that differs from mine issue.

Believe me these fundies want to import the agenda lock, stock and barrel from the US.

[rocktivity]

14. "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin."

And what does losing your virginity have to do with sexual sin?

A piece of jewlery symbolizes what you want it to. And if jewlery is not allowed, then it shouldn't be allowed for EVERYBODY. I find for the school. She can wear the ring on her own time.

:headbang:
rocknation

[JoDog]

21. The cynic in me

thinks the parents are pressing this for publicity.

[annabanana]

24. Of course they are... Daddy's a pastor, the kid's already out of that school

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6229098.stm

[johnlal]

26. But isn't that what free expression is all about?

Civil disobedience to make a public statement?
If the school would have looked at this and determined that it was just a silly little ring, and that it really wasn't any big deal, then the pastor wouldn't have had any publicity at all. Zero tolerance policies in the school usually lead to bad consequences.

[OldschoolDem]

41. Zero Tolerance policies are a bad idea

Different situations need to be treated differently.

[OldschoolDem]

42. Purity Balls have good intentions

Absentence is still the best form of protection against STDs and pregnacy, but I wouldn't force that on anyone. It still is a choice.

[BushOut06]

51. Abstinence is a stupid policy

It's just unrealistic. Instead of focusing on something that's completely unrealistic, how about educating teenagers about the risk of STDs and pregnancy? Give them options they can actually live with.

[FiveGoodMen]

52. Abstinence may be good for physical health...

...but teaching that sex and sexual desire are sinful and evil is certainly bad for mental health.

[noamnety]

95. I don't know about the ring, but

I do know they need a better term than "purity balls."

[SemperEadem]

81. if she needs to wear that ring so badly, her parents can pay

to enroll her in a school which has no ban on jewelry. This particular school does. So either they obey the rules or they pay to educate their daughter in a school that has no ban.

In the end, it's the school board who makes the rules. If one can't abide by it, they can pay to enroll their child in a school that allows 'freedom of expression'.

[lastliberalintexas]

100. If the student wants to wear an armband in a war protest so badly,

her parents can pay to enroll her in a school which has no ban on armbands.

Fuck, you people need to read a little bit about recent history, since I think most of your schools skipped the Modern American history class. I know this school is in the UK, but if we're arguing from a US viewpoint, I can't see how anyone who dares to claim to be a liberal can side with the school. Unless of course we're being blinded by the distasteful politics of the plaintiff involved.


Personally, I'm glad the Tinkers fought for their rights. And even though I vehemently disagree with these people, I am glad they are fighting for their rights as well. She should have the right to wear the damned ring. She does NOT have the right to disrupt actual class time in any way, as it should be.*


* Again, I'm only arguing from the US legal viewpoint. I don't know British laws, but I think it wrong either way.

[Nihil]

103. "fighting for their rights"? She has no right ... *that* is your mistake.

> Fuck, you people need to read a little bit about recent history, since I think
> most of your schools skipped the Modern American history class. I know this
> school is in the UK, but if we're arguing from a US viewpoint, I can't see how
> anyone who dares to claim to be a liberal can side with the school.

Possibly because some of the people who "dare to claim to be a liberal" are
actually capable of reading - and understanding - the commitments entered into.

It really *doesn't* matter whether the jewelry in question is "I love death metal",
"My Dad is a paedophilic right-wing Christian" or "I want Bill Clinton's baby",
the fact of the matter is that the jewelry is NOT permitted on the school premises.
That's what the school have maintained since before the child was admitted.
That's what the parents agreed when they signed their daughter up for it.
That's what the other parents and other children understand.
That's what this particular set of illiterate troublemakers are playing
"persecuted plaintiffs" about ... they have changed their minds and want the rest
of the world to accommodate their shit-stirring time-wasting publicity-seeking
vanity.

> Again, I'm only arguing from the US legal viewpoint. I don't know British laws,
> but I think it wrong either way.

That is where *you* are wrong. This *isn't* the US and so the US legal viewpoint
is about as valid as the Taliban's in this matter. If the situation was taking
place in a US school then have at it with whatever analogies you care to choose
but the frame of reference is completely different in this actual event.

[Tiberius]

107. Replace "jewelry" with "armband" - it may change your thinking

It really *doesn't* matter whether the armband in question is "I love the NRA",
"My Dad is a Left-Wing Loonie" or "I want Bill Clinton's baby",
the fact of the matter is that the armbands are NOT permitted on the school premises.

That's what the school have maintained since before the child was admitted.

That's what the parents agreed when they signed their daughter up for it.

That's what the other parents and other children understand.

That's what this particular set of illiterate troublemakers are playing
"persecuted plaintiffs" about ... they have changed their minds and want the rest
of the world to accommodate their shit-stirring time-wasting publicity-seeking
vanity.

[Nihil]

108. Nope ... not one bit of difference there.

> It really *doesn't* matter whether the armband in question is
> "I love IRAN", "My Dad is an illiterate Loonie" or "I am Bill Clinton's baby",
> the fact of the matter is that the armbands are NOT permitted on the
> school premises.
> That's what the school have maintained since before the child was admitted.
> That's what the parents agreed when they signed their daughter up for it.

And to save you time, it applies whether the agreed item that is now being
flaunted falls into the category of jewelry, armbands, hats, small animals
or shotguns. If you have signed up to "XYZ is not allowed" then you really
haven't a leg to stand on when you later - 5 years later - claim that
"this particular XYZ" should be treated differently.

:eyes:

I think the problem with America's educational system is older than
the Bush era if you two are any measure of reading comprehension ...

:shrug:

[lastliberalintexas]

110. When liberals side with a governmental authority

against the individual, we're in trouble. You must have missed the fact that I acknowledged this was in the UK and therefore not subject to our laws. But we are mostly Americans arguing on a message board which mostly discussed US politics, so I addressed the situation from the viewpoint of US laws. My dismay at liberals siding with the school applies regardless of whether this happened in the US, the UK or Bora Bora. The unwarranted limiting of individual freedom bothers me for some strange reason, go figure.

Also, for some unknown reason, my post discussing the Tinker v. Des Moines case was deleted (post 99, I believe), but that post explaining that case would have put my others in perspective.

[SemperEadem]

105. if she were attending a US public school and was singled out for the ring

then you have a valid point.

HOWEVER, her parents have signed a binding contract which states that they and their minor child will abide by the rules of the school in exchange for her attending the school and gaining her diploma/certificate/grades from that school.

The UK does not have the same constitution as the US--nor does it need to have it--and that is where your whole premise falls flat on its face with regards to 'rights'. The fact still remains that when you sign your name to a binding contract, you agree to uphold what's required of you in said contract. It has nothing to do with being liberal, conservative or anything else. It has to do with taking responsibility for what you said you would do.

If they can't abide by the terms of that which they bound themselves to, then they need to take the minor child out of that school and put her in one where she can wear all the jewelry her heart desires. The wearing or not wearing of a ring isn't going to negate the fact that she's choosing to remain celebate--and she and her parents are acting like it will if she doesn't get the rules bent to allow her to wear that ring. Seems to me that her pledge is flimsy at best if she needs the rules bent for her.

[johnlal]

23. I'm just a little uncomfortable...

I'm a little uncomfortable with the Democratic Underground elements assuming the role of the School Girl Fashion Fascists.
I have a feeling that if a girl had a ring that said "Bush Sux" a lot of people here would defend her, regardless of school policy.

[Arkansas Granny]

29. I have a feeling that if a girl had a ring that said "Bush Sux" it would

still fall under the school policy of no jewelry and the "School Girl Fashion Fascists" here on DU would still agree that no jewelry means no jewelry, even if we did think the ring echoed our feelings.

[blondie58]

32. no- I don't believe so

although many of us here agree with that sentiment. It is the schools rule against wearing jewelry. That doesn't make us School Girl Fashion Fascists.

Now, tell the truth- if you had a daughter, you would attend one of these "chastity balls', now wouldn't you?

[johnlal]

35. Telling the Truth here...

No, I wouldn't want to attend a chastity ball with my daughter. I'm not a part of that religious movement, and I think it's a bit creepy, misguided, and just another part of the morbid obsession Religion has with sex. However, I think that these fathers love their daughters, they are involved with their daughters, and they are doing what they think is best to protect their daughters.

BTW, I do have a daughter. When she gets old enough to understand, I hope she will abstain from having sex until such time as she is mentally, physically and emotionally mature enough to have a healthy sexual relationship. And at that time, I hope she is smart enough to use protection. And I hope I will be courageous enough to discuss these things with her, and wise enough to know when the right time will be.

And if my daughter thought it was important to wear a little silver ring to school, I would say, "Screw the school board, wear your ring!"

(And then my wife would step in and bring us both back down to earth)

[lastliberalintexas]

101. This is troubling

Maybe I am reading too much into some of the posts on this thread, but I am amazed at some of the sentiments here. So many of you seem to be saying, "The school has a rule and it has to be followed."

When even people on the left have stopped questioning authority, it might be time for me to actually make that move to Europe I've joked about for years.



And personally, I agree with the poster who said that the sentiment on DU would probably be much different if the ring said Bush Sux.

[SemperEadem]

106. so you are an advocate of anarchy then.

the school has a rule that says one must attend a certain number of days/year in order to gain the education to advance to the next level. You're premise is that "no they don't have to attend and it's ok to sue a school to pass a student to the next level when they have not adhered to the requirements the school has set forth". Schools also have a rule of "no guns/knives/weapons"--are you saying that rule doesn't have to or shouldn't be followed? I don't know about you, but I know plenty of parents who would take issue with you thinking it's ok for a student to break a rule and bring weapons into the school in their backpacks. Same with drugs--it's ok with you for a student to break a rule to not bring drugs into the school?

When one signs the necessary forms to enroll their child in a particular school, they are agreeing to the rules set forth by that school. If they can't abide by those rules, they need to enroll their child in a school which has no rules regarding jewelry. They also need to read for comprehension that to which they are signing their names before they sign their names to the page.

If the school said student was attending said "no jewelry", then no, a Bush Sux ring would not be allowed.

[lastliberalintexas]

109. No, not an anarchist at all

I understand the social contract necessary for an organized, civilized society. That said, yes, I do tend to have small l libertarian tendencies. I am just having a hard time understanding why some people on this thread seem to be taking the school's rule at face value, rather than examining the substance of the rule and whether it's truly necessary or just another method of achieving conformity. It seems that we really have become so accustomed to being good little Germans that we don't even ask ourselves if the rule or law in question is a good one anymore. Maybe this rule is a good one, but far too many people on this thread have just reacted to the rule being in place rather than even considering the efficacy or necessity of the rule.


And the article, though sparse on facts, did mention that the school had bent its preciouse little rule for someone else based on a religious excuse. Personally, I am an agnostic with atheistic leanings. But even I say that the school should be uniform in its application of the rule, if it must have such a silly rule to begin with.

[LanternWaste]

116. Agreeing with a particular sentiment or position...

Agreeing with a particular sentiment or position taken by "authority" does not preclude questioning that same authority.

If the rule has been discussed and vetted, and does not limit who a person can be doesn't the onus of valid criticism then lie with those who would see it repealed?

:shrug:

[Mad_Dem_X]

54. Doubt it. n/t

[Exiled in America]

89. It's already happened countless times.

People are human, and democratic underground is full of humans. So its not surprising that the honest and alert observer can note countless times where people attitudes about issues are strikingly different depending on how sympathetic the person in question is.

If a person in question is conservative, then their rights are less strongly advocated, and people start suggesting things like "there ought to be limits to free speech" etc. If a person in question is liberal, then they enjoy a rigorous defense that often passes all reason.

Want a recent example? Take the Southern Democratic Senator who was indicted (the 90,000 dollars in the freezer guy). It was pretty stunning to hear the same people calling for the heads of republican senators involved in scandal stand there and defend this guy.

It happens. But it should be expected. Doesn't make DU less of a nice place to visit overall.

[Exiled in America]

88. Yup.

[Exiled in America]

86. Ummm but it isn't "not allowed for everybody" - so why do you find for the school?

The school allows some people to wear jewelry - it makes exceptions for certain religious beliefs.

Either no one should be allowed or anyone should be allowed to wear something they claim is connected to their religious faith.

But that's not the case. So until the school modifies its policy to be consistent, I find for the girl, regardless of my personal feelings about her convictions.

[I Have A Dream]

16. I just recently started to receive "pro-life" (they should say "anti-choice") E-mails...

from somewhere in the UK. I was surprised by this; I didn't know that this was happening in the UK also.

They refuse to remove me from their mailing list even though I've repeatedly asked them to remove me. x(

[LiberalFighter]

40. How about calling it anti-women or man's-choice

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. It makes a change, but "Only in Britain..."

[CJCRANE]

48. Why do you hate Britain?

:shrug:





;)

[Joe Chi Minh]

58. I hate what's become of it. Perhaps you're too young to remember

what Britain was like between 1945 and 1980.

Well, I dare say it was already sinking into anomie and chaos before Thatcher, because the militant atheists in the Labour party, despite all the good their predecessors had managed to achieve for the country and its people, had begun their work of democratising evil.

Previously, under right-wing administrations, the Conservatives, apart from the wickedness of their economic oppression - mercifully, however, considerably attenuated by a strong Opposition party - their monied villains were fairly well managed and contained; Christian values remained offically extant. It was taught in schools to indignant and scoffing young unbelievers such as myself, who largely repudiated it, as is the wont of young people. However, essentially Christian values were inculcated in their minds and hearts, whatever their conscious protestations.

However, now, the militant atheists are rampant and wreaking ever greater chaos and destruction. Our newspapers now daily report things even the worst villains wouldn't have imagined could happen in their darkest dreams, at every level of society; not infrequently sponsored or perpetrated by the Government, itself - now a permanent far-right wing, thanks to Blair's theft of the Labour Party and the cynical majority of hacks in his party who have given him a free pass up to this day.

Apart from in Scotland, where at least the Scottish Nationalists are trying to reverse the trend towards corruption of the politicians and serve the people, rather than exclusively the corporations to the detriment of the people, things are always getting worse and, never better and better.

One of the latest fascinating news items is that the sparkling, new LABOUR Party has plans for making people work until they drop - into their seventies and beyond. In our brave, new, militantly atheist world things relentlessly get worse, not better. But heck, freedom is everywhere! It's just that the concept no longer connotes any notion of responsibility. We can pick from an immense smorgasbord of values or even non-values at our own discretion. Now that IS freedom, isn't it! The laws will see everything's OK, 'cos we'll just adjust them to our private predilections.

[MrPrax]

69. militant atheists?

Well I dare say...

the militant atheists in the Labour party...However, now, the militant atheists are rampant and wreaking ever greater chaos and destruction....

Sounds frightful?

15 Questions Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to "Destroy Religion"
Huffington Post

Confused prat makes mistakes
http://thegoldenstrawberry.blog.com/Comment+Is+Free/">Guardian - Comment is Free

Blasphemous U.S. Mint Brings New Commandment
The militant atheists base their objection on the “Establishment Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Blog of the Gods

Apart from in Scotland, where at least the Scottish Nationalists are trying to reverse the trend towards corruption of the politicians....!!!

Well I hope they do a much better job addressing the Scottish people than some idiot did addressing a US chat room....

[Joe Chi Minh]

74. Wow. You really shot me down in flames there!

[spoony]

78. Yeah, barrages of random links will do that

:D Next thing you know, you'll be buried under "owned" graphics or some such.

I absolutely get where you're coming from, btw. I keep as up to date as possible with the goings-on in my dear old blighty, and wish I could deliver a mass wake-up shake sometimes.

[Joe Chi Minh]

92. Good to hear, spoony.

[CJCRANE]

76. You know

I was actually echoing the faux-freeperism "Why do you hate America?" that DUers like to use ironically.

However...I can understand your disillusion. I'm just not so sure it's due to militant atheists. There is no longer any such thing as small-c conservatism in either Britain or America - that's more due to extreme RWers hijacking the conservative movement and pushing through changes that destroy social safety nets than anything to do with secularists.

[Joe Chi Minh]

91. They are all secularists. It's just that some like to cloak themselves as

Christians, while there are "de facto" Christians among non-believers. It's kind of confusing, but kind of comforting that Heaven won't just being peopled by "school prefects", if you follow me.

The non-believing "de facto" Christians tend not to be militant secularists, though I dare say, and indeed, hope that some of them too will some day see the folly of their position - not just for themselves, personally, but for their country and the world. It certainly wouldn't be a first. Many a Communist has turned to Christianity when the penny dropped.

Christians all have to be converted every day. It's an axiom of our faith that even holy men sin many times every day.

I wish you could see some of headlines in today's Sunday papers. Beyond belief. I'm as conservative as can be. It's just that I believe the welfare scroungers at the top of our society should be the target of our politicians, not the poorer folk. What the latter half-inch is chicken-feed in comparison.

And, also, crucially, conservatism absolutely demands progressiveness, because it is the lot of us human beings that if we do not go forward, we go backwards. Justice and mutual reverence must be mankind's over-riding priority, and that can never be achieved for long without reference to our obedience to our Creator. But that doesn't mean an "anything goes" travesty of real freedom, which requires responsibility.

Incidentally, I failed to mention that sexual diseases have also become a major problem with young people here, as well as the proliferation of schoolgirl mothers. Here are some links:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/859783.stm

I wondered whether you were writing tongue in cheek about hating Britain!

A few more words, from Colin Hart of the Christian Institute, on plans to offer jabs against cervical cancer to young girls:

"We may as well be giving children cigarette filters and needles, in case one day they want to smoke or inject drugs."

[LeftishBrit]

104. I can remember the latter part of that time...

and there has been a change for the worse in many ways; but IMO it's *nothing* to do with 'militant atheism'. It's to do with a shift to the economic right, and worship of market forces. Some of this was the result of IMF pressures in the late 70s; some of it was due to economic changes from being a predominantly industrial to a predominantly service-oriented nation (to some degree inevitable, but accelerated by Thatcher); and most of it was due to THATCHER, and her long reign and huge influence on political attitudes in this country. Similar or worse things happened at a similar time in America under Ronnie, who was about as far from a militant atheist as one can get.

I do think that there is a kernel of truth in your view that when old-fashioned values were swept aside, this had some disadvantages: they included decent values, 'sense of honour', 'fair play', public service, etc. as well as some of our sillier snobberies. But religion had relatively little to do with it. Class attitudes did perhaps, in a complex way. The 'noblesse oblige' ideas of it being a good thing to 'act like a gentleman' and that there are certain actions that are 'simply not cricket' had many limitations, but it was not an unmitigatedly good thing when they were swept aside by Thatcherite worship of 'self-help' and 'upward mobility'; 'there is no such thing as society'; I'm all right Jack and the Devil take the hindmost! The Victorian idea that 'playing the game' honourably is more important than winning has received lots of ridicule, but on hindsight perhaps both literal sports, and other aspects of society, could benefit from a bit more of this attitude today.

On the other hand, not all changes in attitudes have been bad. I am very glad that there is more acceptance now of rights for ethnic minority members, gays, women, etc. than there was in the past.

ETA: I am not sure that the 'headlines in the Sunday papers' necessarily reflect worse evils than were present in the past. If you read Dickens and other Victorian writers, you get the sense that there was an awful lot of crime, violence, alcoholism, prostitution, etc in the 19th century.

[uberllama42]

27. There's that idea that sex is somehow dirty.

Funny how that keeps cropping up among those Christians. How does abstaining from sex make you pure? She should wear a ring signifying her promise never to believe the government's lies. At least that way it would be worth something.

[OldschoolDem]

43. Well waiting until your married still is the safest way to go

If everyone only had sex with one person the rest of their life there would be no STDS, but nobody should be forced to do that.

[knight_of_the_star]

97. There's actually evidence to the contrary

There's different cultures in the world like in the South Pacific that prior to contact by Europeans as far as we know were and are VERY sexually open but prior to contact didn't suffer from STDs based on their reactions to contracting them following first contact.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

122. Yeah, and if nobody went out of their houses, ever, there'd be no traffic accidents. -nt

[Bridget Burke]

28. Here's the school policy....

JEWELLERY- This is not part of school uniform and MUST NOT BE WORN. Girls with pierced ears may wear one pair of plain ear "studs" - which must be removed for P.E.

Other studs including nose and tongue studs are not permitted.

www.millais.co.uk/information/uniform2.html

According to the BBC article, Christian Concern for Our Nation is funding the legal case.

Christian Concern for our Nation (CCFON) is an activity of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship Public Policy Unit. It is a service for non-lawyers who want to be equipped to understand, act and respond to the increasing number of legal issues impacting the Gospel and Biblical justice at the heart of our society. CCFON consists of a website and e-mail update service supported by an active team of lawyers.

www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/

The girl has left school. This is just a big publicity scam by the UK's Religious Right.

[Orsino]

33. Stupid policy.

It even has a built-in exception, with the weasel-word "plain" just to confuse the issue.

Sounds like a rule just for the sake of having a rule.

[otherlander]

50. What a stupid rule.

Not just for religious stuff, but for banning jewelery in general. Bet they just did it because they like having the power to ban stuff.

[Bridget Burke]

56. Well, her parents chose to pay .... CORRECTED!

No, they didn't pay. But they specifically selected that school.

Parents have a right in law to express a preference for the place of education for their children and forms for this are circulated to all primary schools within the area in September. These have to be returned by the published closing date to the Pupil Admission Office which then allocates places. If a school is oversubscribed places are allocated according to strict criteria.
www.millais.co.uk/information/admission.html

And the school's rules are available on the internet.

[Joe Chi Minh]

59. A ring on her finger must make her look very slutty. So, obtrusive, too...

Doubtless, it's the first thing people notice - especially the inscription on it - and are always coming up to her to ask about it. Not.

One fact - Britain has the worst record in Europe for schoolgirl pregnancies. Handing out condoms has made the situation worse, rather tham better. But they know everything, despite the facts pointng in the opposite direction across the board.

[Sequoia]

30. Christians shouldn't be silenced, they should be thrown to the lions.

The freeper variety that is.

[truthisfreedom]

34. Maybe they should switch to a "purity tattoo?"

[LanternWaste]

37. Ahhh... my kind of place

Ahhh... my kind of place. No extraneous body decorations or body mutilations allowed to be shown. That's a policy I wouldn't mind having at my office...

[LeftishBrit]

44. I can confirm that most British schools don't allow kids to wear jewellery at school

For all sorts of reasons. The school is hardly discriminating against Christians!

[johnlal]

45. "All sorts of reasons?"

Do they tell the teachers and staff to leave their wedding rings at home?

[LeftishBrit]

47. In some schools, there are dress codes for teachers; though not strictly enforced

Schools in Britain often have uniforms for the pupils, not just bans on particular items. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all the dress restrictions -just that this girl is not suffering special discrimination. If tshe wanted to go to court to argue against restrictions on her appearance, that might be another matter; but the 'poor persecuted Christian' argument doesn't wash.

[johnlal]

49. I agree with you there.

I don't think they were targeting her for being a Christian. I think they were just enforcing a zero-tolerance rule that doesn't make sense in every single circumstance.

We had a dress code in my high school in the early eighties. No facial hair, we had to wear a neck-tie and a jacket. It seems like the young-republican types were well-dressed "preppie" looking while the more liberal dudes pushed the dress code as far as it would go. Maybe they would have a little stubble, or their hair would be just a little too long in the back. Their tie would be tied in a funny way. They would wear political buttons on their lapel, or wear army jackets to school.

I guess that's why I'm upset with some of the people here who are standing up for the school's dress code. It just seems like we should be a little more anti-establishment.

[Bridget Burke]

57. Thanks for telling us what we need to do!

The parents chose to send her to that school. The dress code is published on its website.

But the parents really wanted to stir up a controversy using the "Christianity Under Attack!" message well known to us who've followed the Religious Right in the USA.

[knight_of_the_star]

98. My issue with this

Is not that I like the idea of dress codes, I think they're an effective way to control people that I despise, my issue is that the people in this case are crying, "Oh we're so persecuted because we have to follow the same rules as everyone else waaaahhhh!" Honestly anytime Fake Xtians cry that old bs it pisses me off considering that pagans in this country know real persecution while those people wouldn't know persecution if it kicked them in the teeth with steel-toed boots.

[dansolo]

114. And I doubt the same Xtians would be open to pagan jewelry

Can you imagine the uproar if a girl came in wearing a ring with a pentagram on it?

[SemperEadem]

82. non sequitur

adults and minor children are two different entities.

[xchrom]

53. it's about no jewellry at school -- for everybody

not about showing everybody that her vagina is ''sanctified''.

in short -- it's not about HER.

[Aristus]

55. Chastity pledges are the kind of thing that end in "honor killings".

:scared:

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. Wrong. The cultures of countries where survival for most families depends

on solidarity is responsible for forced marriages, honour killings, etc.

[spoony]

79. Must be a trend I've missed, maybe you could post some cites.

[pampango]

80. Both the "purity ring" and the scarf could be seen as symbols

of a commitment to avoid premarital sex. Of course, the scarf represents a commitment to other things like modesty and other Islamic principles, not just premarital sex. We have all heard of honor killings in strict Islamic cultures, though the extent of it is something I am no expert in, but I have not heard of honor killings related to chastity pledges in other cultures.

[Marrah_G]

60. As creepy as I find it, I don't see why a small ring would be banned

My daughter wears a small pentacle with a goddess figure on it to school and there is never an issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. It's jewellery, which they'd already said was not allowed with the uniform

And there's no reason to allow her to make up something about it being part of her religion.

[Marrah_G]

63. Ahh okay I missed that all jewelery was forbidden

That makes sense then.

[Igel]

71. There is one exception for jewelry, and it's religious in nature. n/t

[dmallind]

119. not quite

the exceptions have been made for jewelry which is an integral and significant part of religious faith, not for geegaws peddled by one's own dad as part of a completely irrelevant moralizing crusade.

[SemperEadem]

83. In Britain at this particular school in question?

[depakid]

64. Hopefully, Britain will take a lesson from its former colonies

and not let the fundies gain a foothold on their nation.

This sort of thing is precisely how it starts-

[SemperEadem]

84. they already kicked them out...

that's why the Puritans landed on Plymouth rock.

[yurbud]

73. does it have a little hymen on it or something?

[philosophie_en_rose]

75. She needs a ring to give her strength? Like the Green Lantern?

:shrug:

She could wear the ring on a chain around her neck and solve the issue for everyone.

I fail to see why she needs everyone to see her ring.

[Giant Robot]

90. Good catch!

I did not think about that, but I agree its more about the ring being seen and advertised than anything to do with a sacred oath she has made, as silly as that seems.

I'm of two minds on this one. Primarily I believe in free expression, and think this is really silly and nothing to fight over. Also I think absolute rules are pretty ridiculous and dangerous in some cases. Let the girl have her ring.

But on the other hand, I don't know what the laws in Britain are around freedom of expression. I also think that this is just a trap so that some fundy can create a stir over there (sorry to all the folks in the UK). And lastly, well, its school, the rules were clearly stated, and she had the choice where to go. The father could have found a school more to his liking, I suspect, as it appears the girl is safely ensconced somewhere that honors her ring wearing.

I guess overall I have to say this is chastity pledge is just creepy. I don't really want to know her sexual status. This looks like a bullshit kind of thing to me, that should not have gotten even this much publicity.

[NoodleyAppendage]

112. She needs to have everyone see her ring because it's about getting new converts.

Xtianity is a virus and requires infection of new recruits to perpetuate their power.

J

[rodeodance]

77. the British arm of the U.S. campaign group the Silver Ring Thing,

[Nikki Stone1]

85. Activist Phil Playfoot is using his daughter to score political points here

Sadly, the issue is really not about Lydia or what's best for her, but about Phil's desire to forward a fundamentalist cause.

[Dukkha]

93. They took my PRECIOUS!

AAAAAAAAAAH!

[Nevernose]

94. If you don't think simple jewelry can be disruptive to learning,

then you've never been a high school teacher. I've got a desk drawer full of make-up, jewelry, hats, playing cards, pocket knives, joy buzzers (apparently they still make 'em), and anything else that has ever disrupted a student in my class from learning.

The sad thing is, I'm actually very tolerant. I wait a heck of a lot longer than most teachers before I confiscate something, and even then I'm supposed to give it to the Deans' office for the parents to pick up. My policy is "don't bother anyone higher up on the food chain" -- a policy that I actually think it important to teach -- so I let them pick their stuff up after school. The stuff I have is the stuff they deemed unimportant enough to bother pick up.

[galileo3000]

96. Things are important if we make them so.

Peace to the girl, her family, the school, and all who are stirred up by such symbolism. We have much more important issues. Letting this slide would have given far less power to the ring.
- Peace while I eat my own dog food.
Your happy humble warrior
Galileo3000

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

111. The rings are stupid, but if the UK is going to be consistant they better let her wear it.

The Brits let Sikhs carry around there knives and let Muslim girls wear headscarves, I don't get how this case is any different. I know I might be flamed for saying this, but based on what I've head on the BBC if this young lady had been of a minority group the school would of bent over backwards so as not to "offend her beliefs."

[Bridget Burke]

113. Here's the relevant paragraph from the school's website:

JEWELLERY- This is not part of school uniform and MUST NOT BE WORN. Girls with pierced ears may wear one pair of plain ear "studs" - which must be removed for P.E.

Other studs including nose and tongue studs are not permitted.
www.millais.co.uk/information/uniform2.html

The whole controversy was cooked up by the "We Christians are so persecuted" gang. They are well-known in the USA.

Sounds as though they've got the racists on their side, too.

I'll bet the school wouldn't allow Odinist symbols, either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. 'Chastity ring' girl loses case

A 16-year-old girl was not discriminated against after she was banned from wearing a "purity ring" in school, the High Court has ruled.

Lydia Playfoot was told by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to remove her ring - which symbolises chastity - or face expulsion.

The school denied breaching her human rights, insisting the ring was not an essential part of the Christian faith.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6900512.stm