Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
'Purity' ring case in High Court
by BBC News
Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6229098.stm
Lydia's argument
A 16-year-old girl is in the High Court to accuse her school of discriminating against Christians by banning the wearing of "purity rings".
Lydia Playfoot was told by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to remove her ring, which symbolises chastity, or face expulsion.
She says Sikh and Muslim pupils can wear bangles and headscarves in class.
The school denies breaching her human rights, insisting the ring is not an essential part of the Christian faith.
BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Piggott said a group of girls at the school were wearing the rings as part of a movement called the "Silver Ring Thing" (SRT).
Human rights barrister Paul Diamond told the High Court the school's action was "forbidden" by law.
"Secular authorities and institutions cannot be arbiters of religious faith," Mr Diamond said.
He said a question the judge would have to answer was: "What are the religious rights of schoolchildren in the school context?"
'Sexually pure'
Originating in America, SRT promotes abstinence among young people.
Mr Piggott said it was now spreading to the UK as part of a wider protest by traditionalist Christians against what they see as the secularisation of society.
The rings are inscribed with a reference to the biblical verse I Thessalonians 4:3-4, which translates as: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honour."
Miss Playfoot's school said her ring broke uniform rules and ordered her to remove it.
When she refused, she was taken out of lessons and made to study on her own.
She told BBC Breakfast: "In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith."
Miss Playfoot is seeking a judicial review under Article Nine of the Human Rights Act which guarantees freedom of religious expression.
She says that should protect her right to wear the ring.
In a written statement to Deputy Judge Michael Supperstone QC, Miss Playfoot said young girls faced a "moral and ethical crisis" and that other teenage girls at her school had become pregnant.
She said other pupils regularly broke the uniform code with nose rings, tongue studs, badges and dyed hair.
The only reason for banning the rings was because the school refused to "give respect to aspects of the Christian faith they are not familiar with", Miss Playfoot said.
"The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the SRT purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint which is counter cultural and contrary to societal and governmental policy," she added.
Uniform code
Lawyers for the school will insist that it is not operating a discriminatory policy because allowances made for Sikhs and Muslims only occur for items integral to their religious beliefs.
It argues that a Christian pupil would be allowed to wear a crucifix.
In freely choosing the school, lawyers will also say that Miss Playfoot and her parents voluntarily accepted to adhere to the uniform code.
Miss Playfoot's first application to the High Court was turned down last year, but judges agreed to hear it today after she appealed.
Miss Playfoot completed her GCSEs last week and has now left the school.
But her father Phil, who is a pastor, said she still wanted to take the case because of its wider significance for all Christians.
"I think there's something bigger at stake here," he said.
Messages of support
Mr Playfoot and his wife Heather are part of the volunteer team which runs the UK branch of the Silver Ring Thing from their church in Horsham.
The organisers of the movement say as many as 25,000 young people have joined so far in the UK and that numbers are growing.
Miss Playfoot has received messages of support from politicians, including former Conservative party chairman Lord Tebbit and Tory MP Ann Widdecombe.
She also has the backing of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF) which represents 2,000 Christian lawyers across the UK.
The case is being funded through individual donations gathered through the LCF's sister group Christian Concern for our Nation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6229098.stm
Lydia's argument
A 16-year-old girl is in the High Court to accuse her school of discriminating against Christians by banning the wearing of "purity rings".
Lydia Playfoot was told by Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, to remove her ring, which symbolises chastity, or face expulsion.
She says Sikh and Muslim pupils can wear bangles and headscarves in class.
The school denies breaching her human rights, insisting the ring is not an essential part of the Christian faith.
BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Piggott said a group of girls at the school were wearing the rings as part of a movement called the "Silver Ring Thing" (SRT).
Human rights barrister Paul Diamond told the High Court the school's action was "forbidden" by law.
"Secular authorities and institutions cannot be arbiters of religious faith," Mr Diamond said.
He said a question the judge would have to answer was: "What are the religious rights of schoolchildren in the school context?"
'Sexually pure'
Originating in America, SRT promotes abstinence among young people.
Mr Piggott said it was now spreading to the UK as part of a wider protest by traditionalist Christians against what they see as the secularisation of society.
The rings are inscribed with a reference to the biblical verse I Thessalonians 4:3-4, which translates as: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honour."
Miss Playfoot's school said her ring broke uniform rules and ordered her to remove it.
When she refused, she was taken out of lessons and made to study on her own.
She told BBC Breakfast: "In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith."
Miss Playfoot is seeking a judicial review under Article Nine of the Human Rights Act which guarantees freedom of religious expression.
She says that should protect her right to wear the ring.
In a written statement to Deputy Judge Michael Supperstone QC, Miss Playfoot said young girls faced a "moral and ethical crisis" and that other teenage girls at her school had become pregnant.
She said other pupils regularly broke the uniform code with nose rings, tongue studs, badges and dyed hair.
The only reason for banning the rings was because the school refused to "give respect to aspects of the Christian faith they are not familiar with", Miss Playfoot said.
"The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the SRT purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint which is counter cultural and contrary to societal and governmental policy," she added.
Uniform code
Lawyers for the school will insist that it is not operating a discriminatory policy because allowances made for Sikhs and Muslims only occur for items integral to their religious beliefs.
It argues that a Christian pupil would be allowed to wear a crucifix.
In freely choosing the school, lawyers will also say that Miss Playfoot and her parents voluntarily accepted to adhere to the uniform code.
Miss Playfoot's first application to the High Court was turned down last year, but judges agreed to hear it today after she appealed.
Miss Playfoot completed her GCSEs last week and has now left the school.
But her father Phil, who is a pastor, said she still wanted to take the case because of its wider significance for all Christians.
"I think there's something bigger at stake here," he said.
Messages of support
Mr Playfoot and his wife Heather are part of the volunteer team which runs the UK branch of the Silver Ring Thing from their church in Horsham.
The organisers of the movement say as many as 25,000 young people have joined so far in the UK and that numbers are growing.
Miss Playfoot has received messages of support from politicians, including former Conservative party chairman Lord Tebbit and Tory MP Ann Widdecombe.
She also has the backing of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF) which represents 2,000 Christian lawyers across the UK.
The case is being funded through individual donations gathered through the LCF's sister group Christian Concern for our Nation.
Comments 1 - 50 of 92 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #51263 by leodavinci on June 22, 2007 at 7:10 am
I find it quite weird the way that christians try to control their childrens (usually females) sexuality, there seems to be a kind of voyeuristic undertone to it all, ewwwwww. "But her father Phil, who is a pastor" - wow,never would have guessed that,freaks
Other Comments by leodavinci
3. Comment #51266 by Holy Roller on June 22, 2007 at 7:15 am
Maybe we could start a 'Pink Ring Thing' (PRT) that would indicate the promiscuous behavior of the owner…at least then we would know where everyone stands! Other Comments by Holy Roller
4. Comment #51267 by MartinSGill on June 22, 2007 at 7:16 am
Religious symbols have no place in school full stop.You are there to learn and be educated, not to proliferate your belief system. If you want to show your god how devout you are you should spend more time in church, and less time in the courts of law wasting everyone's money.
Other Comments by MartinSGill
5. Comment #51268 by PrimeNumbers on June 22, 2007 at 7:17 am
Amazing how these christians, in all their moral goodness, don't like obeying the rules when they feel like it.But now she's left school - perhaps she's looking for a job? As a potential employer would you employ someone who sued their school over something as trivial as this?
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
6. Comment #51272 by Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2007 at 7:29 am
A cynical person moght detect in her piety the none-too-subtle pushing of Daddy."The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the SRT purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint which is counter cultural and contrary to societal and governmental policy,"
Believe me, NO teenager talks like that!
And as for seeking employment- she'll probably go and work for Dad in the Church.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
7. Comment #51273 by Apemanblues on June 22, 2007 at 7:30 am
Storm in a tea cup.Whilst I couldn't give a damn whether a child of Christian parents 'chooses' to wear a chastity ring at school or not, it's obvious that this is just an evangelical group trying to play the persecuted minority for the free perk of publicity.
What an utter waste of everybody's time.
Other Comments by Apemanblues
8. Comment #51276 by madpatriot on June 22, 2007 at 7:35 am
I dunno, I'm torn here. I can't see the point of forbidding someone to wear a ring, even if I disagree with what it symbolizes. On the other hand, by attending the school she agreed to foloow the dress code. Pointing out the exceptions made for other students, and violations by other students, does not absolve her of her responsibility to follow the rules.The whole 'purity' thing, especially the bizarre father/daughter purity dance phenomenon here in the states, really creeps me out. Isn't it enough for the girls who want to abstain to just abstain? Do they have to make such a public show of it? I don't think that's WJWD.
That said, it's somewhat a shame - ehe's kinda cute. If she was of age, and there wasn't an ocean and her creepy pastor dad and her archaic beliefs in the way, I'd totally hit that. ;)
Other Comments by madpatriot
9. Comment #51278 by konquererz on June 22, 2007 at 7:39 am
Sorry, I have to disagree with the majority of those who posted. I happen to think that uniforms in general violate a child's freedom to express themselves, destroy individuality, and cause the loss of self image as one gets molded into the crowd. I support a child's right to express themselves and disavow that school district for imposing uniforms! However, if it is a private school, then she doesn't have a real legal argument here. While I lend her my moral support for her wish to express the person she is, I.E. a sexually deprived teenager, then I think she should. Suppressing religion is not going to get it removed from society, it will encourage it. We are talking about a martyrs faith, and the school is making her a martyr and they love it.
If its a public school, then I am completely against the schools supposed right to enforce any school uniform at all. I am currently fighting our public school system over the enforcement of school uniforms.
Other Comments by konquererz
10. Comment #51279 by CJ on June 22, 2007 at 7:40 am
I bought my kids books on sex education when they were 11 and came across a medical text book with some very graphic colour pictures of the results of STDs. We sat down and studdied this one together. I then noted that "The Blue Book" was regularly trotted out and shown with squeals of horror to the local kids. Worked a treat! If you can harness curiosity then education is self fulfilling.One thought that crosses my mind is what message does this send about the kids not wearing the ring? Are they to be considered easy or sluts?
Other Comments by CJ
11. Comment #51284 by robhu on June 22, 2007 at 7:49 am
I think she ought to be able to wear the ring. If schools are going to allow any religious jewellery at all then I don't think they should put themselves in the position of being the arbiter of whether the jewellery is 'required' by the faith or not. Especially given that religion belief is very much a personal thing, what might be important for one Christian (e.g. wearing a crucifix) is completely unimportant to another.Various people here seem to think that no religious jewellery or clothing should be allowed in schools. Personally I'm not sure, but I think in society we ought to err on the side of allowing freedom of expression even amongst teenagers.
Other Comments by robhu
12. Comment #51286 by icanus on June 22, 2007 at 7:59 am
Sorry, I have to disagree with the majority of those who posted. I happen to think that uniforms in general violate a child's freedom to express themselves, destroy individuality, and cause the loss of self image as one gets molded into the crowd. I support a child's right to express themselves and disavow that school district for imposing uniforms!
I generally agree on the school uniform issue. I certainly hated wearing one myself. What annoys me is that "It's my religion" gets a free pass as a reason to ignore the rules, while "because I want to wear it" doesn't.
In an ideal world I'd probably like to see school uniforms done away with, but as long as those are the school's rules (which the girl and her family freely accepted by sending her to the school), trying to impress your invisible friend isn't a valid reason to break them.
It certainly isn't a valid reason to divert funds which should be being spent on education into defending against spurious lawsuits.
Other Comments by icanus
13. Comment #51287 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 8:02 am
I'd let them have the rings, so long as they'd agree to participate in a study on teen pregnancy. Study group: will wear a ring every day as a reminder not to think about sex. REMEMBER: DO NOT THINK ABOUT SEX!
Control group: general age matched population.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
14. Comment #51288 by NJS on June 22, 2007 at 8:02 am
Just as many young Muslims in the UK are "covering up" more, not as an expression of faith but as a political statement meant to agigate, more and more christians are stamping their feet and saying "special rules for them means special rules for us".As a couple of people have said I'm torn between a "why bother" attitude and one of "ban the lot".
Having said that the deliberate attempt to cause a fuss rather than just wear the things makes me favour the latter.
As an aside funny how men in the abrahamic religions don't have to remain pure isn't it?
(though I realise this particularly US stupidity does seems to apply to both)
Other Comments by NJS
15. Comment #51289 by Russell Blackford on June 22, 2007 at 8:02 am
If this brainwashed child wants to symbolise her allegiance to the cause of misery and unreason - epitomised by that disgusting bible verse - then, *sigh*, I suppose she should be allowed to. Similar leniency should apply to her classmates if they want to symbolise their allegiance to the life of freedom and reason. Maybe we should buy them all scarlet letter T-shirts.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
16. Comment #51290 by Sargeist on June 22, 2007 at 8:09 am
I am kind of in agreement with icanus, above. I am aware that I have a tendency (like Michael Jackson) to being black & white, but to my mind this sort of situation leads us to a simple either/or situation:Either:
Children can wear what the hell they like to school
Or:
They can only wear clothing prescribed by the school.
What bothers me most (and not just me, of course) is that religions don't have any definitive statements about what their supposed adherents should wear/do. We've all seen lately the argument that goes "ah well, that's not *my* religion, those people are not *true* X's". But there is no way to examine this claim and see if it holds up.
An analogy I have used involves programming languages. If I am writing a program that begins:
program test
implicit none
integer :: i,j
double precision :: dblArray
and so on, and tell someone that I am programming in Java, then someone will say: "No, that's Fortran." Now, who are *they* to tell me that I'm not programming in Java? Ah, well, you see there's this Standard produced by Sun Microsystems that tells us that, in fact, I am *not at all* programming in Java.
I'd just like to see the same for religion, once and for all.
Other Comments by Sargeist
17. Comment #51291 by Philip1978 on June 22, 2007 at 8:10 am
konquererz I understand what you are saying but I wore a school uniform all my life and I really don't see the difference between that and wearing a suit to work if the company requires it. I completely agree with you that kids should be able to express themselves and that they do already, the My Chemical Romance and Muse concerts I have been to this year alone have shown me that kids are expressing themselves in all ways possible. The uniform to me was simply something that said I go this school and I was rather proud of it. A bit like when I represented my school at sports, I wore something that said I play for this school. I could always take the uniform off to go out after school and wear what I wanted. It was simply just in school, like work, I had to wear something they asked me too. Saying that it does cost a bloody fortune!!I agree with the idea this is simply a stupid publicity stunt for her dad's religion, the ring is superfluous to the whole thing and its a waste of tax payers money when it could be put to much better use improving schools so they can teach in proper classrooms and have access to the right equipment so the kids can learn something, simple as that
Other Comments by Philip1978
18. Comment #51292 by Sargeist on June 22, 2007 at 8:12 am
What we need, of course, is a time machine. Just get Hawking to fix us up with one, nip back in time, get Jesus to carry around a huge bloody great cross, maybe on his back, and then we can get all our children humping them into school for some "equal treatment".Oh, hang on, maybe he did do that. Come on Christians! Where's your imagination?!
Other Comments by Sargeist
19. Comment #51294 by Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2007 at 8:16 am
Yeah, you don't see Christians hammering nails through their wrists in honour of their Saviour, do you? And they call themselves faithful? Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
20. Comment #51296 by Philip1978 on June 22, 2007 at 8:18 am
Erm Quetz, they actually do, I remember reading something about some religious pillocks nailing themselves up to express their love of christ at easter time, I heard one guy goes back for more each year!Some artists do it as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Horsley
Other Comments by Philip1978
21. Comment #51298 by Sargeist on June 22, 2007 at 8:39 am
Those crucifixions make it more amusing to me that some girls wear rings to say how they don't want to get nailed. Other Comments by Sargeist
22. Comment #51300 by scottishgeologist on June 22, 2007 at 8:40 am
Interesting to google some of this stuff and follow it through. Father is a pastor in a "charismatic evangelical" church. Great. Charismaniacs. Arm waving, tounge speaking, slain in the spirit "shine jesus shine" nutters. Note the name of the church "Kings" church. A lot of these charismaniac types are right into this "Kingdom" ie dominionist theology. So lots of references to kingship and crown symbols and all that guff. Alpha course looms large over the web site. The God Delusion Indoctrination Course in other words.
How about this quote: "The church we see is impacting every aspect of our community and nation, bringing credible and authentic God centred counter culture. People who are living for the Kingdom of God, shaping and breaking into education, business, government, family life and social care"
This sort of pish is straight out the Bible Belt.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
23. Comment #51301 by mikebreed on June 22, 2007 at 8:42 am
I think the sexual comments about this girl are pretty unpleasant, and don't do our cause any favours.As for the issue, which is the important thing, Icanus surely has the right response: where do we draw the line? Presumably anyone could arrive at school claiming a religious right to wear anything. All they have to do is stick to their guns. They don't even need parental backing, as in this case. All it would require is an "I believe", and they could do what they liked.
We have to consider the rights of the other children to be educated without this sort of nonsensical distraction.
Other Comments by mikebreed
24. Comment #51302 by Titus on June 22, 2007 at 8:45 am
This story has been running on BBC radio 5 all day. There was a debate on the rights and wrongs of the issue which I called in to. The point I made was, that I'm sick of schools being used by the religious right as a battle ground for their antiquated beliefs, for which they have no evidence. I think we should, like the French, ban religious symbology from schools altogether.If people must persist in their unreason, they should damn well keep it in their own home.
By the way, I have two daughters, and my responsibility is to make sure they are well educated and able to think for themselves. It is not my place to dictate when or where they lose their virginity: that is a matter for them as responsible human(ist) beings.
Other Comments by Titus
25. Comment #51303 by scottishgeologist on June 22, 2007 at 8:45 am
Oh yes, 1st Thessalonians eh? How about this from chapter 5: 26: Greet all the brethren with an holy kissTell me WTF is an holy kiss? And why do so few Christians ever do this? Can you imagine a big church congregation carrying this out to the letter? One massive snog-in?
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
26. Comment #51306 by LenW on June 22, 2007 at 8:51 am
When I was in school we called those rings a "Don't waste your time ring." FYI :)Other Comments by LenW
27. Comment #51310 by DerrickB on June 22, 2007 at 9:39 am
This is simply a well orgainsed marketing campaign by the UK wing of the John Guest Evangelistic Association Inc. They are a Christian recruiting organisation. Their main guy Denny Pattyn believes the end of the world is imminent. Lots of info at:http://www.taozenchi.com/bcpblog/?m=200602
Mum & Dad Playfoot run the UK Branch and are cynically using their own daughter. They have a shop selling their merchandise at a nice profit no doubt (The US parent company can afford to arrange private planes):
http://www.silverringthing.org.uk/shop.asp
The US Govt was initially contributing funding to this, but were forced to stop by the ACLU.
Other Comments by DerrickB
28. Comment #51311 by dancingthemantaray on June 22, 2007 at 9:49 am
I don't know, it's just a ring, seems the school are being perhaps a little inflexible. Don't see how it has anything to do with religion really, more of a uniform issue. Bit of a shame her dad seems to be pushing her into this conflict, odds on her being 'pure' until her wedding night anyone?Other Comments by dancingthemantaray
29. Comment #51315 by konquererz on June 22, 2007 at 10:19 am
Philip1978I to wore a school uniform in a christian school growing up. I dispised it then and I dispise it now. But there is a huge difference between you being forced to wear a uniform at school and you being told to wear a suit and tie at work. Children don't chose what school to go to. You can always switch jobs, not work, work for yourself, whatever. You still have the choice to be where you are in life. Children have that decided for them, and cloths are often the first place they start exhibiting their independence and expression of self. Not much left for a child to learn to make decisions on if their entire day is planned out for them through high school.
Other Comments by konquererz
30. Comment #51317 by bitbutter on June 22, 2007 at 10:33 am
Either: Children can wear what the hell they like to school
Or: They can only wear clothing prescribed by the school.
Quite. This kind of clarity would fix it--no exemptions for religious dress.
Other Comments by bitbutter
31. Comment #51318 by PaulJ on June 22, 2007 at 10:42 am
Seems to me that in this case the school has been well and truly trapped. There's a reference in the article to the ring being against the school's uniform rules, but I'd like to know what the rules actually state -- and I wouldn't be surprised if the school's lawyers tell them to settle.The more I read about this, the more it seems likely that the religious group saw a golden opportunity for some free publicity.
Watching the linked video made me think that the girl is simply doing what Daddy has told her to.
Other Comments by PaulJ
32. Comment #51321 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2007 at 10:51 am
Okay, I am going to back that girl to the hilt on this. This is ridiculous. It's a flipping ring. And let me point out that ideas about chastity or whatever aren't limited to christianity. The school's behaviour is disgraceful. If Sikhs can wear bracelts and Moslems can wear the hijab, she can damn well wear the ring.Anyone here remember Voltaire?
And just from a cynical, realpolitik point of view, what do you think the Christians point to when they rage against secularism? This kind of nonsense.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
33. Comment #51322 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 10:52 am
I agree with most of the posters here. She needs a good shagging. Maybe even a trio! Other Comments by pewkatchoo
34. Comment #51323 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 10:57 am
Excellent stuff here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39XD1ImxGWw&mode=related&search=
and look at some of the comments.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
35. Comment #51324 by epeeist on June 22, 2007 at 11:00 am
Comment #51321 by Fanusi Khiyal
Okay, I am going to back that girl to the hilt on this. This is ridiculous. It's a flipping ring. And let me point out that ideas about chastity or whatever aren't limited to christianity. The school's behaviour is disgraceful. If Sikhs can wear bracelts and Moslems can wear the hijab, she can damn well wear the ring.
Then you would be quite happy if we came to a decision about some kind of distinguishing clothing for atheists and demanded the same rights to wear that?
Anyone here remember Voltaire?
Not personally, he was a little before my time. Are you referring to anything in particular, he wrote quite a lot you know. Personally I quite enjoyed the character of Dr. Pangloss.
Other Comments by epeeist
36. Comment #51325 by chezzyd on June 22, 2007 at 11:00 am
I actually agree with school uniform as it removes differences between pupils and encourages treating others as equals first instead of being judged always by what you are wearing, how much it costs etc. Also it prepares you for the outside world where wearing whatever you want to a job interview, for example, would not send out the right signal. I agree with the French system that bans ALL outwardly religious symbols. Religion and culture is becoming ever more integrated, i.e. where you are born dictates what you have to think/believe. At least the French system allows some space between the two. The ring can be put back on again outside the school gates - plus if you really believe something do you need to make such a public show of it, or is it, in the case of this girl, something that pleases Daddy in making sure his little girl remains 'chaste'? And as some others have noted, why aren't the boys wearing them? Other Comments by chezzyd
37. Comment #51332 by thirdchimpanzee on June 22, 2007 at 11:33 am
Comment #51323 by pewkatchooHilarious and intriguing. I guess God (er Jesus) is taking a timeout from running the Universe to dance with a groupie. I don't think Judaism and Islam have anything to match this "direct" relationship to their deity - which makes me suspicious that Christianity is not really a monotheistic religion at all. It should be placed somewhere between the true monotheisms of Judaism/Islam and the hierarchical polytheism of Hinduism.
Of course, as an atheist, its all fairy tales, but we may have been missing an important characteristic of Christianity. Jews and Muslims are probably much more theologically compatible than either is with Christians (unless they're unitarians).
Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee
38. Comment #51333 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 11:39 am
A silver ring given out by a church organisation. Yeah right.What's the betting it's silver plate?
Don't be surprised if it turns your finger green dear...
Other Comments by Corylus
39. Comment #51334 by stuartM02 on June 22, 2007 at 11:42 am
Excellent stuff here.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39XD1ImxGWw&mode=related&search=
WTF! That was unpleasent.
Other Comments by stuartM02
40. Comment #51336 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 22, 2007 at 11:47 am
>>Then you would be quite happy if we came to a decision about some kind of distinguishing clothing for atheists and demanded the same rights to wear that?<<<_You_ are free to wear whatever you want, and I fail to see the problem with wearing something that identifies yourself as an atheist, though I don't know what that could be.
But there is no we. Atheism isn't unified. So the idea that 'we' could come up with something is nonsensical.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
41. Comment #51337 by AdrianB on June 22, 2007 at 11:50 am
The real issue for me is as follows.The parents and governers of our children's school have just come to agree on a dress code. It took many weeks of debating. I was for uniforms because there are instances of bullying about what kids wear, and it would get my kids off to school much quicker without the stress of what they were going to put on that was cool. In the end it decided against uniforms, but that jewellery was not allowed. This was decided by the parents, and we all abide by the rules.
If somebody then decides that the agreed rules are okay for the majority, but not for them, then what point are the rules?
Let me just move this girls reasoning into another example. What if somebody said it is okay to drive at 40mph in a 30mph area because his god says speed is good? Or even worse, what if somebody said it was okay to murder because his religion instructs him to?
Other Comments by AdrianB
42. Comment #51338 by Steven Mading on June 22, 2007 at 11:53 am
Either:A) Uniform strictly required where physically possible.
or
B) The uniform is totally optional. Ignore it if you like.
What I don't like is this situation:
C) Religious reasons to break the uniform core are allowed, but other reasons are not.
I also don't like this situation, which is what the French seem to be going with:
D) No uniform code except to ban religious-themed clothing.
Either a uniform code is required regardless of religion, or it should be ignored regardless of religion. Don't give religion special privilege and don't give it special prohibition either.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
43. Comment #51339 by pewkatchoo on June 22, 2007 at 11:56 am
Hey StuartI thought it was brilliant. Best laugh of the day. Did you read the comments? Wonderful. You couldn't make it up.
epeeist
I agree. As a parent with 2 kids, there is absolutely no way that I want them showing their individualism in their dress. Have you any idea what these kids like to wear? Expensive designer clobber only please. It becomes a fashion war if you let them wear what they want. All we parents would be subjected to MAD. Mutually Assured Destitution.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
44. Comment #51346 by BillySands on June 22, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Tell me WTF is an holy kiss? And why do so few Christians ever do this? Can you imagine a big church congregation carrying this out to the letter? One massive snog-in?
I think it means you kiss everyone on the ring - like Ted Haggaed does.
Other Comments by BillySands
45. Comment #51347 by Shrunk on June 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I have to agree with those who say this girl has a point. I don't see how her ring is any less integral to her faith than a hijab is to a Muslim girl's. All this case will accomplish will be to allow the Christian fundamentalists to claim a victory when she wins her case. Other Comments by Shrunk
46. Comment #51349 by SRWB on June 22, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Fine line here......The whole idea of freedom of thought and expression is at play. But why care, unless the religious article, i.e. "fashion accessory" causes some one else a real risk or threat, or is so disruptive to order and discipline in the school? That's why, the examples of driving above the speed limit or murder for God are not relevant to this debate. In such cases, someone else is at real risk of injury or death.
By the same token, I also agree that if you allow it for religious freedom of thought and expression, then it must be allowed for any other reason related to freedom of thought/expression (with the above proviso of course).
Other Comments by SRWB
47. Comment #51370 by TedWak on June 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm
This just shows to go you how silly things get when you apply rules without any flexibility or common sense. The school clearly let this get way out of hand. One wonders if there are other issues not talked about between the school and the girl (and/or her family), or why would they risk all the negative publicity (and ANY publicity for the girl and her d*****d ring).If kids are getting away with nose and lip rings, what's the problem with a finger ring? If there's no safety concern, then let it go…
Yes, schools have the right to enforce their uniform policy – there are pros and cons for having uniforms or not (uniforms can be a "leveller" where there is wide economic differences among students) -- but pick your battles, ma'am.
TW
Other Comments by TedWak
48. Comment #51374 by scottishgeologist on June 22, 2007 at 2:12 pm
There are a couple of things here. A girl wears a ring on her finger to school. Pretty inocuous - its not as if it was hanging from her lip. So did the school get all uppity and shout "hey you, get that ring off!" Which to me sounds OTT. On the other hand (more info needed here) did the girl make a Big Thing about her chastity ring and start the evangie propaganda? In which case maybe the school has a point.
Whatever, the bottom line is the evangies are on a win/win here. Either she gets to keep the ring, which gives them the victory.
Mind you the article says she has left school - wonder where she went, Liberty U? :-)
Or they bleat (they're sheep after all) about persecution , martyrdom, these awful secularists, decline in moral standards, ad nauseam. And they will claim its vicimisation of Christians. Which every good fundie knows means victory.
There is a type of fundie who only feels he /she has got it right when they feel victimised for their faith.
You even get this phenomenon within denominations - the 2000 debacle within the Free Church of Scotland had plenty of this "precious" type of behaviour. Ask Wee Flea - he'll tell you!
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
49. Comment #51377 by scottishgeologist on June 22, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Just thought of something: "Mr and Mrs PLAYFOOT" Eh? WTF? Is it just me, or is there not something deliciously fetishistic about that name?
Sort of makes me think of a nylon-encased foot being rubbed against a leg under the dinner table sort of thing....
But then again, given the obvious sexual hangups of the names owners, well, maybe no......
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
50. Comment #51379 by Bonzai on June 22, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I think there is a bit of backlash politics going on here. The school is seen as applying a double standard to insist that Christians must remove their religious ornaments while muslims are allowed to wear the hijab. This has happened in many U.K institutions including British Airways.
When even Christmas trees are deemed politically incorrect in certain schools halal food is served in school cafeteria without the knowledge of students and parents. When a tiny cross on on the lapel is banned for its religious symbolism women in full veil are seen strutting about. Many U.K. Christians feel that they are treated unfairly and I have to say that they have a point.
The usual justification for this kind of discrimination is that the muslim hijab or the sikh turban are "religiously mandatory". That is a nonsensical argument. Either the open display of religious symbols causes discomfort or it doesn't. If it doesn't then all religious symbols should be allowed within reason,--say a limit on number and size. If it does then all should be banned. School and airlines are not in the business of deciding what is religiously necessary for which religion.
Other Comments by Bonzai
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #51262 by icanus on June 22, 2007 at 7:10 am
What a pity I didn't think of this when I was at school. I could have insisted that my faith in the invisble pink unicorn required me to wear jeans and trainers instead of the shoes and black trousers dictated by the school, and sued anyone who tried to stop me.This really is nonsense. It's not like the school was asking her to have sex, just not to wear a piece of bloody jewellery.
Other Comments by icanus