Schoolgirl fights for right to wear 'chastity ring'

[lyrasdaemon]

A 16 year-old girl is going to the High Court to gain the right to wear her 'chastity ring' at school. Read more here.

IMHO, this girl hasn't got a leg to stand on. The 'chastity ring' is not a Christian symbol, it is a symbol of a pledge made to remain sexually inactive until marriage, a pledge which can be made by those of all faiths and none. As the ring is not a uniquely Christian symbol, the girl's religious beliefs are not being discriminated against by being told she cannot wear it. For this very simple reason, the High Court should chuck out this case worthwith and tell the girl to get stuffed!!!

No - I don't think she should be allowed to wear the symbols of a Pakistani Muslim CULT either if the school has a no jewellery rule.However, I am happy to withdraw "american" and "right-wing" if it offends anyone.

If the school allows its pupils to wear the emblems of religions, then all should be treated equally. Lydia is perfectly entitled to wear a cross if she wants to.

The silver ring thing is not a religion, it is a club. Hence my scouts analogy.

I had to get a bible then to read that reference then Kate . Personally I think that your sex life or absence of one should remain private to yourself as if this girl changes her mind later on, it could be hard for her to come to terms with it if she genuinely believes in this at the moment let alone the potential backlash from the media plus there's a certain amount of tack in the situation. I wouldn't be happy if my dd was doing this, named and photographed in the press as a 'teenage prude' so I can't imagine what her parents are going to get out of this except a pyrric victory. She's left school now anyway. TBH I can't see her wining her case as Moslem girls have been barred from wearing the top-to-toe hijab in state schools so I don't think a ring will elict much sympathy from the courts.

In this instance, it's predominantly the girls parnets exloiting their daughter because they are trying to get publicity for their disgusting creepy cult - the girl is leaving school at the end of the term. In general, what we are seeing is assorted wankers making a big deal out of their idiot supersititions, insisting not just on concessions but in being able to ram their particular superstition down everyone else's throats ie it's not enough to have superstitions, they've got to be vigorously displayed. In the case of all these batshit Christians bringing cases, it's bigotry driving them, they want to wave a Mine's Bigger THan Yours flag at non-christian believers. It's worth noting that most established religius wear is stuff that can be worn without getting in the way of everyday life (a necklace worn beneath the clothes, a head covering that is reasonably practical). Schools and workplaces are entitled to insist that religious or personal tokens be pracitical and not get in the way - and believers who are not right up their own fucking arses should be able to make a reasonable compromise with this.

Thank you madamez - I agree.

And the next time some loon comes on the radio saying that Christians are discriminated against in this country I am going to hit it (the radio, not the loon) with an axe!

Thank you madamez - I agree.

And the next time some loon comes on the radio saying that Christians are discriminated against in this country I am going to hit it (the radio, not the loon) with an axe!

bookwormmum has a very valid point, that the odds are that one day this girl will cringe at the memory of all this.
To me, the right to be wrong, is terribly underrated.
I'm a sort of Heienleiner, and I don't accept the validity of any sanction against an individual unless it can be shown that a specific other person can be shown to be harmed.

This girl is harming no one, except maybe herself. I am very dubious about the notion that jewellery, be it Christian, Moslem or Klingon is going to make a school a worse place to be educated.
Madamez may be right that the motives of the Christians pushing this are unsound.

But their motives should not matter.

The separation of church & state was largely invented by Elizabeth I, who said it is not the role of the state "to cut a hole in men's hearts". This was at a time when Christian gangs were allowed to do just that.

This is a atate school, and education is compulsory.
The state can't know what this girl believes, and teachers acting with the power of the state should have no right to determine how people express their faith unless they can show that this expression materially harms others.
"harm" in this context isn't saying things that others don't like or wearing symbols, unless the symbol is likely to be used as a weapon in the playground.

She'll end up like Britney Spears, mark my words, another publicly proclaimed virgin. Or Whitney Houston.

DC: I too support people's right to be wrong. But I think the school specifically prhibits wearing rings (as my old school did) because they are a safety hazard in games and some science lessons, and a hygiene hazard in food preparation). I owuld imagine that the school would have accepted the girl wearing said ring on a chain round her neck or perhaps removing it when necessary - but I bet this was offered as a compromise and the response was along the lines of 'not when them foreigners are allowed to still look foreign and still wear their headcoverings...' But like I said, taking legal action is more a matter of pushing their agenda in everyone's faces than a genuine case ofdiscrimination.Just like that twunting woman in the BA row. It wasn't that she was banned from wearing her cross, it was that she insisted on making it visible to everyone because members of other relgions head coverings are visible to other people...

Rings are not a safety hazard, I used to be a chemist, and I would bet money the staff are allowed to wear rings. I'm not an expert on detailed food safety, but gloves may be worn.

Also silver is trivial to make safe for food, we call this process "boiing".

If she refused to take it off for a real safety reason, then I'd agree, but banning jewellery strikes me as teachers playing fashion with kids under the guise of discipline.

I absolutely reject the notion that she made comments about foreigners, and that's a shabby attack.
if she had said such things do you think for one instant it would not be used against her ?
She's pushing an agenda, so what ?
The school is pushing it's agenda as well, and even given my lack of sympathy to any form of superstition, I see bullying by the school.

And yes, it's like the BA row.
BA is very happy to have the Christian cross painted 10 feet high on the tails of it's planes, and some of the planes themselves have rather Christian sounding names.

DC: I don't think it's a good idea to wear rings for playing hockey or lacross (from the persepctive of a Morris dancer who has seen and experiences some rotten sore fingers from forgetting to remove rings during vigorous stick dance). ANd I'm not attributing direct quote to this girl who I have never met, merely paraphrasing what is at the bottom of both this and the BA woman - they are protesting at what they describe as 'unfair' privileges given to 'foreigners' and that is why they are refusing to compromise on their jewellery and are in fact spoiling for fights. WIth regards to the girl, why send a child to a school with a uniform policy if you're going to demand exceptions to that policy? Why not send her somewhere she'd be allowed to wear rings through her eyebrows, nipples and fanjo proclaimng her chastity?

A Morris dancer??

A 'chastity ring'?

Oh, ffs.

I don't see how wearing a ring would be a health and safety issue? Adults wear their wedding ring without it being a health and safety issue, i think the whole thing has gone a little ott.

I wonder how many of the posters saying "pathetic, teenage posturing" etc about this girl said the same thing about the teenaged girl in the news last year who campaigned for her right to wear a headscarf? There seems to me to be a double standard.

Both belief systems are equally flawed and questionable IMHO, but if you allow one child to express his/her cultural and religious fervour against school uniform rules, surely you can't then deny others the same privilege.

Tsk, they'll be wanting to bring their Morris Dancing sticks & bells in next. (Jiggle Jingle Jiggle Jingle Thwack)

It is not a religious symbol. She'll lose the case, and she and her family know it. It is purely a "publicity" stunt. Despite her parents protests she is being used by them.

Remember when Britney Spears did all that posturing about being a virgin?

Greensleves, are you talking about certain religions where the person has to wear a head scarf and the school allowing this?

Technically the full head covering isn't a religious symbol either, it's a cultural preference based on a highly questionable interpretation of a religious belief system. As is the chastity ring.

I always think that the school allows certain religions to wear those head scarfs in fear it won't look good and being called racist if they say no to it.

i think DC had a point below - are you foing to say it isn't part of her religeon?

it might well be part of her faith system in the church she goes to who says what is part of religeon and what isnt'

then back to the point below - you either allow religous posturing or you dont' theres no inbetween - we let the seiks or the moslims, the hindus the bhuddists - but we wont allow christians to express their faith system.

PMSL @ Aloha

Custardo, i agree. It should be all or nothing.

I was thinking more of the girl whou wanted to wear the jilbab rather than just a headscarf - another example of a teenager being used by adults who didn't want a compromose and just as stupid. I have no probelm with personal symbols (which include stuff that's decorative or makes a political statement - I don't see why only the superstitious are allowed this sort of privilege) as long as said symbols don't get in the way of what you are doing or cause any kind of health hazard (if, for instance, someone claimed that their Satanism meant they had to carry around a rotting dogs bottom in a bag all the time then perhaps a school would be justified in persuading them to carry a picture of one instead).