Valid Expression of Faith?

Fanny Cradock

The Guardian carried a story in the paper yesterday regarding Lydia Playfoot, 16, who has taken her school to the High Court for their insistence that she removes a 'purity' ring. This ring denotes her belief in sexual abstinence until marriage. Her argument is that the right to express ones beliefs is given to kids of other faiths in the school, but not her as a Christian. For their part, the school authorities maintain that thjs expression is not a requirement of Christianity like, for example, the turban would be in Sikhism. In many respects this case seems to resemble the BA employee who was suspended from her job because she refused to remove a cross on a chain she wore.

I'd be particularly interested to hear the views non-Christians - especially atheists - on a persons right to express their faith - be that Christian or whatever. In the case above, I would think that the ring (see the BBC link for a picture) is so unobtrusive to be inconspicuous. Of course, it is more than a mere lump of metal; it carries a specific message. But is that message so dangerous or unappealing that it should come to this?

I would be of the opinion that people should be allowed to express their personal faith - whatever that may be. However, there should be qualifiers to go along with that. For instance, something which is designed to cause offence, an inverted cross for example (haven't seen too many of those in fairness), or is culturally unnerving to some, e.g. a burka, should not be allowed in a otherwise secular environment. I work with women who wear hijab (the headscarf part) and I couldn't give a fiddlers. Why should anyone else?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6230824.stm

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2109483,00.html

Son Goku

Well first of all I wouldn't really mind a headscarf or a cross, in fact a cross around your neck is a very standard thing it seems odd that somebody would be asked to remove it. In a lot of social worker jobs that I've been in people commonly have religous screensavers, e.g. "Jesus is our saviour". To be honest I can't really understand why anybody would care.

The purity ring however is a different thing in my opinion. It is associated with a very wierd (read: electra complex wierd) movement spreading across America that comes out with some odd slogans and posters like the "glass hymen" one. To be honest it isn't really an expression of faith, it's an expression of a 1950's throwback counterculture.

Fallen Seraph

I reckon that it's the right of anyone to express their beliefs provided that it doesn't impinge on the rights of others and isn't likely to be considered offense.

Wrt this specific case; I thought I heard on the news that it was the school's pre-existing policy to ban rings and moreover that crucifixes are permissible. So they're not discriminating against christians; just enforcing their dress policy.

And indeed; I don't think that the BA incident was particularly justified; but I can understand them not wanting to alienate their foreign customers and tbh I find it kinda odd that religious expression became an issue with an airline when they rigorously enforce an aesthetic policy on their hostesses...

Crucifix

Personally I feel you should either pick a dress code and stick to it, for everyone, or not have one at all.

Fanny Cradock

I would agree that there is more than a drop of the Evangelical American influence behind the concept. And I can see how it could get up peoples noses - much in the same way the Fathers and Daughters for Jesus thing does. However, not having sex before marriage is a key belief of Christianity. The fact that she is wearing the ring displays that she is doing it for Jesus (or not as the case may be).

Fanny Cradock

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Wrt this specific case; I thought I heard on the news that it was the school's pre-existing policy to ban rings and moreover that crucifixes are permissible. So they're not discriminating against christians; just enforcing their dress policy.

I think the article (the guardian one) states that other 'commoner gardener' jewellery is permissible.

Fallen Seraph

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would agree that there is more than a drop of the Evangelical American influence behind the concept. And I can see how it could get up peoples noses - much in the same way the Fathers and Daughters for Jesus thing does. However, not having sex before marriage is a key belief of Christianity. The fact that she is wearing the ring displays that she is doing it for Jesus (or not as the case may be).

After having read the articles you linked to, it looks like what the principal is worried about is a situation where students are coming saying : "Well this ring is to signify my chastity, and these three nose-piercings signify the holy trinity and my purple mohawk represents my rejection of materialism and the fact that I'm naked is in sympathy with all the poor who can't afford clothes. Also it's all religion-based so legally you can't touch me."

Fallen Seraph

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I think the article (the guardian one) states that other 'commoner gardener' jewellery is permissible.

Actually I think it's Lydia herself stating that the code is only loosely adhered to, rather than permitted; which tbh I'd take with a grain of salt...

Son Goku

Fanny Cradock wrote:

However, not having sex before marriage is a key belief of Christianity. The fact that she is wearing the ring displays that she is doing it for Jesus (or not as the case may be).

To be honest I wouldn't mind if it was that, but in this case I suspect it's not really a Christian thing and really only a midwest America thing. Read up on what they learn in the "course" that proceeds getting the ring.

JC 2K3

I think that all the major religions should have to apply to public schools for permission for adherents of their faith to wear a standard clothing/jewelery to express their faith

philologos

This ring doesn't bother anyone else, doesn't interfere with anyone elses daily lives. I can't see why she can't continue to wear it.

Fanny Cradock

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Actually I think it's Lydia herself stating that the code is only loosely adhered to, rather than permitted; which tbh I'd take with a grain of salt...

Indeed. But you only stated: 'I thought I heard'. That's hardly concrete, now.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

After having read the articles you linked to, it looks like what the principal is worried about is a situation where students are coming saying : "Well this ring is to signify my chastity, and these three nose-piercings signify the holy trinity and my purple mohawk represents my rejection of materialism and the fact that I'm naked is in sympathy with all the poor who can't afford clothes. Also it's all religion-based so legally you can't touch me."

A bit of ad libbing there! Anyway, you would think that the authorities would be able to satisfactorily distinguish between teenage angst and something more profound. For example, public nudity for whatever reason would, I'm sure, be considered a public offence. Acceptable haircuts/ hairstyles could easily be defined. In the case of the latter, the haircuts, you would assume what is deemed as an acceptable appearance would change over time. Why not an expression of faith?

Son Goku wrote:

Son Goku but in this case I suspect it's not really a Christian thing and really only a midwest America thing. Read up on what they learn in the "course" that proceeds getting the ring.

It is possible. I would suggest, though, that you have already judged the girl and her motives without actually looking at the facts, which in fairness to yourself are a bit thin on the ground. However, if this is a genuine expression of Christian faith, and not a Midwest American thing (or MAT as I've just decided to call it), would that make a difference to you?

I would think that the people involved in the case would each be comfortable enough in their respective beliefs not to feel threatened by this simple statement.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I think that all the major religions should have to apply to public schools for permission for adherents of their faith to wear a standard clothing/jewelery to express their faith

I'm unsure, but I would say that they would already have done this. The problem here is the assumption that a man in a white collar somehow knows how I can best express my faith - something that is far more personal than a haircut.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

This ring doesn't bother anyone else, doesn't interfere with anyone elses daily lives. I can't see why she can't continue to wear it.

It's about the principle of school rules. I'd like to have dyed my hair a different colour or gotten a piercing when I was in school, but I could not as the school has appearance rules.

If the school has a no jewellery policy, the school has a no jewellery policy. No ifs or buts. And religion should be no more valid a reason to break school rules than anything else.

Now, if there's some sort of religious necessity associated with wearing a specific piece of jewellery or clothing, then that religion should apply to the state for permission for it's adherents to be allowed wear it, as I've mentioned earlier. Fanny Craddock, school is not a place for religious expression and it's not a place where freedom of expression is a fundamental right.

Son Goku

Fanny Cradock wrote:

It is possible. I would suggest, though, that you have already judged the girl and her motives without actually looking at the facts, which in fairness to yourself are a bit thin on the ground. However, if this is a genuine expression of Christian faith, and not a Midwest American thing (or MAT as I've just decided to call it), would that make a difference to you?

The rings are only manufactured by that group and they fund other stuff I really disagree with. It doesn't matter about the facts of a particular case, the girl herself is definitely doing it because of her beliefs. However even though she wishes to express "I'm waiting until marriage", they are also thought "Women should go to the kitchen and cook" stuff before they "earn" the ring. I now of the process you go through before you get the ring and the stuff they teach is very disagreeable. I haven't said anything until now about the motives of the girl herself, they are largely irrelevant. It is what she will be lead to believe goes hand in hand with chastity that is the bad thing.

Fanny Cradock

JC 2K3 wrote:

Fanny Craddock, school is not a place for religious expression and it's not a place where freedom of expression is a fundamental right.

And why not? Clearly even the school authorities think that expression of faith is a right. This isn't France after all

We live in a democracy, the case seems not to be about the individuals right to express ones self. Rather it is about how far that right extends. Your statement would seem to be in conflict with the basic human rights Britain adheres to.

Schools are supposed to provide our children with the tools required to function in a word chock full of diversity and expression.

Why is a cross more acceptable than a ring?

JC 2K3

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Why is a cross more acceptable than a ring?

It's not, and the same goes for alternative hairstyles, piercings etc.

Uniforms and dress codes in schools are there to create a more focused learning atmosphere as well as reducing insecurities some students may have about their appearance. Students don't have freedom of expression through appearance in public education and I don't see why an exception should be made for religious students unless a certain piece of clothing or jewellery is an absolute religious necessity(which is rare in Ireland anyway).

PDN

JC 2K3 wrote:

Uniforms and dress codes in schools are there to create a more focused learning atmosphere as well as reducing insecurities some students may have about their appearance. Students don't have freedom of expression through appearance in public education and I don't see why an exception should be made for religious students unless a certain piece of clothing or jewellery is an absolute religious necessity(which is rare in Ireland anyway).

If you allow religious symbolism only where it is an absolute necessity (ie enforced upon members of a religion) then you are discriminating against more tolerant & moderate forms of religion. You are, in effect, saying, "If your religion is so intolerant as to order members to wear a headscarf/crucifix/turban/ring then that is OK to advertise your religion at school. If, however, your religion is tolerant enough to allow people to decide for themselves whether to wear these things or not, then your religion may not be advertised at school."

Such a policy would seem guaranteed to promote intolerant and repressive forms of religion at the expense of moderates.

To my mind there are only two reasonable options.
1. Ban all jewellery and additions to uniform. This applies to silver rings, engagement rings, nose piercings, baseball caps, headscarves & turbans.
2. Allow any such embellishments including all of the above + pentagrams etc.

Personally I find it ludicrous that schools in the UK are getting their knickers in a twist over a teenager wearing a ring while their educational system is churning out semi-literate little savages who are fitted for nothing more than drinking lager and watching moronic reality TV shows.

JC 2K3

PDN wrote:

If you allow religious symbolism only where it is an absolute necessity (ie enforced upon members of a religion) then you are discriminating against more tolerant & moderate forms of religion. You are, in effect, saying, "If your religion is so intolerant as to order members to wear a headscarf/crucifix/turban/ring then that is OK to advertise your religion at school. If, however, your religion is tolerant enough to allow people to decide for themselves whether to wear these things or not, then your religion may not be advertised at school."

Such a policy would seem guaranteed to promote intolerant and repressive forms of religion at the expense of moderates.

To my mind there are only two reasonable options.
1. Ban all jewellery and additions to uniform. This applies to silver rings, engagement rings, nose piercings, baseball caps, headscarves & turbans.
2. Allow any such embellishments including all of the above + pentagrams etc.

Yeah, ok, good point. I'd go for option 1 personally.

robindch

I've no problems with adults wearing this kind of thing -- whatever they like -- they're grown up and can make up their own minds.

But it seems unlikely that this teenager has suddenly, out of the blue, developed the wish to wear this ring on her own. It seems more likely to me that she's been led, subtly or otherwise, into wearing it by some religious leader or other, so I don't see it as being any different from girls 'voluntarily' wanting to wear headscarves and the like. Hence, I think it falls into the same category and, while it's no fun for all concerned, I think it's best that this kind of thing is kept out of schools.

BTW, did anybody see that story about the kid in the USA who turned up in school a short while ago wearing pirate regalia, claiming that he was a member of the church of the FSM and that under freedom of religious expression, it was his religious right to do so? AFAIR, he got pretty short shrift.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I'd be particularly interested to hear the views non-Christians - especially atheists

I think what ever policy is followed should be consistent.

If there is no jewellery allowed then there is no jewellery allowed. End of story. Because the jewellery is considered a part of a religion shouldn't matter. They can get over it.

The problem is that in this case the jewellery rule seems to be very lacks, so I'm not quite sure what the principle is picking on her.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

However, there should be qualifiers to go along with that. For instance, something which is designed to cause offence, an inverted cross for example (haven't seen too many of those in fairness), or is culturally unnerving to some, e.g. a burka, should not be allowed in a otherwise secular environment.

That is a bit ridiculous isn't it. People should be allowed express their religion so long as that expression doesn't unnerve you?

Surely anything can be said to be "culturally unnerving" if someone makes an objection.

I find a "purity ring" being worn by a teenager quite unnerving and I dread to think what that poor girl is being taught by her parents or what issues of guilt she will face towards sex as she gets older. But does that mean I can object on that grounds alone to her wearing it in public?

fatmammycat

A purity ring is not a symbol of Christianity anyway, so the whole argument is moot.

PDN

fatmammycat wrote:

A purity ring is not a symbol of Christianity anyway, so the whole argument is moot.

If Christianity was a monolithic institution with official symbols then that would be true. However, there are many different expressions of Christianity. Apparently, for this girl, the ring is a symbol of her interpretation of Christianity.

JC 2K3

Funny, I always thought the cross was an official symbol of Christianity....

PDN

JC 2K3 wrote:

Funny, I always thought the cross was an official symbol of Christianity....

The cross is used by many, but not all Christian movements, as a symbol. The Armenian Apostolic Church uses a snake instead of the Cross (obviously based on Jesus saying He must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness - John 3:14). It is quite an unnerving experience to enter their main monastery near Yerevan and see icons of snakes everywhere!

The earliest Christians did not use the Cross as a symbol, since the cross was still in use as a form of execution. To have used the Cross then would have been like modern churches putting a hangman's noose or an electric chair on top of their buildings. So the early church used the fish as a quasi-secret symbol & mark of recognition. This was because the Greek word for fish, ichthus, is an acrostic for Iesous Christos Theou Huios Soter - Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour.

JC 2K3

You learn something new every day....

PDN

JC 2K3 wrote:

You learn something new every day....

And who says education can't be interesting, or amusing. Check out Wikipedia's entry on the fish wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parodies_of_the_ichthys_symbol

For a slightly more menacing variation, check out the Muslim shark: http://www.comeandsee.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=508

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The problem is that in this case the jewellery rule seems to be very lacks, so I'm not quite sure what the principle is picking on her.

This, for me, is one of the more troubling aspects of the case. If it is indeed true that a no jewelery policy exists but is not normally applied, then it becomes a subtle form of discrimination to apply the policy against this girl. The school may say, "But we are only applying our policy", but if that policy is not applied consistently then the girl has a legitimate complaint.

I have seen this type of discrimination applied in Bulgaria where state-run schools & colleges are falling apart (with no action ever taken), but an evangelical Bible School is forced to spend a fortune on their building complying with every regulation on the books. It leaves a very nasty taste in one's mouth.

fatmammycat

PDN wrote:

If Christianity was a monolithic institution with official symbols then that would be true. However, there are many different expressions of Christianity. Apparently, for this girl, the ring is a symbol of her interpretation of Christianity.

Her 'interpretation' notwithstanding, her argument is that she is not allowed to express her fatih and this is not the case. Lots of religions value purity, it is not an expression on any one faith and there is no such symbol in the Christian faith as a purity ring. It's like those disgusting purity balls that some Christians hold, an over zealous possessive catch-all where by a girl's worth is weighed against whether her hymen is still intact come marriage night. A disgusting patriarchal parody of 'purity.' As if having sex somehow devalues your worth as a human. Nonsense.
Dress this up any way you like, but purity rings and purity balls are nothing more that tedious attempt to wag the dog. If she wants to profess her faith she can wear her cross on a necklace. It is not for the school to bend for her 'interpretation.'

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote:

It's like those disgusting purity balls that some Christians hold, an over zealous possessive catch-all where by a girl's worth is weighed against whether her hymen is still intact come marriage night. A disgusting patriarchal parody of 'purity.' As if having sex somehow devalues your worth as a human. Nonsense.

Yeah, where the father is supposed to be in charge of her hymen and "purity" until he passes it on to the husband. Hello electra complex =/

Tbh I think they should enforce their no jewellery rule (if it isn't already) and none's allowed for anyone, problem solved
Unless she was going around announcing the meaning of her ring and disrupting the class or something

philologos

JC2K3: You do realise that Muslims are still allowed to wear the hijab (head covering only) into schools in Britain. So why can't Christians be allowed to wear an insignificant cross or ring. It's gone too far..

JC 2K3

Because Britain has become far too accommodating towards Muslims. You're right, if they're the regulations that apply, then she should be allowed wear the ring.

They should ban the headscarves too tbh. France have the right idea. It's not even a religious necessity, just a cultural thing they've imported from the native Muslim countries. I don't see why they should be accommodated.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

JC2K3: You do realise that Muslims are still allowed to wear the hijab (head covering only) into schools in Britain. So why can't Christians be allowed to wear an insignificant cross or ring. It's gone too far..

The issue with that is that if you allow anyone to wear a religious article that breaks a schools dress code, you remove any justification to stop any other article.

I'm sure pretty soon we would reach something that you won't think a person should be allowed wear even for religious reasons. But if you allow one person then what grounds do you have to stop someone else.

I'm with JC 2K3. A public school should have one dress code. If a religious article breaks that code, tough.

philologos

I think items of religious expression which do not hinder communication should be allowed to be worn. Regulations as to the extent however would have to be drawn up, but I don't think anyone has the right to deny someone the right to wear a ring, or a cross necklace...

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I think items of religious expression which do not hinder communication should be allowed to be worn.

Well there you go. It didn't take long to find a form of religious repression that you don't agree with.

The issue of course is who defines if a article "hinders communication", you or the person wearing it? And why is hinders communication a valid reason to stop it. For example a Muslim woman wearing a Burka might say it doesn't hinder her communication at all, or if it does it is her choice to hinder that communication and why should she have to communication with you.

Jakkass wrote:

Regulations as to the extent however would have to be drawn up, but I don't think anyone has the right to deny someone the right to wear a ring, or a cross necklace...

Well naturally you wouldn't think that, since that is the symbol of your religion.

philologos

I don't think wearing a whole outer body garment would be acceptable in schools where they have a uniform. However a cross or a ring, doesn't interfere with anyone around them.

Crucifix

If the ring is allowed why not anything else that doesn't hinder communication?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think wearing a whole outer body garment would be acceptable in schools where they have a uniform. However a cross or a ring, doesn't interfere with anyone around them.

neither does a hijab or a pink mohawk

philologos

I have no problem with the hijab either.

The Mad Hatter

Ehm...I think that the difference between a muslim wearing the Hijab, and a Christian wearing a cross is that the Cross is something representative of the religion - something people wear to express their beliefs, whereas something like the Hijab is actually a prescribed part of the religion. It's not there to express, it's - well, it's the uniform, if you like.

That said, I don't really see any reason that any of this stuff should be banned, really.

JC 2K3

^A conformist policy gives a school a better atmosphere. It helps with discipline, creates a better learning environment and is beneficial for insecure students.

Medina

JC 2K3 wrote:

They should ban the headscarves too tbh. France have the right idea. It's not even a religious necessity, just a cultural thing they've imported from the native Muslim countries. I don't see why they should be accommodated.

Actually it is a religious necessity and in no way a cultural thing.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think wearing a whole outer body garment would be acceptable in schools where they have a uniform. However a cross or a ring, doesn't interfere with anyone around them.

How does a outer body garment (burka) "interfere" with someone?

Zombrex

Medina wrote:

Actually it is a religious necessity and in no way a cultural thing.

See this is the problem. One persons "irrelevant cultural thing" is another persons "religious necessity"

There is no fair way to decide what is or is not necessary.

As I've often said secularism is not about "no religion" it is about "all religions equally" The only fair way to deal with a situation like this (apart from just letting people wear what they want) is to define a secular uniform.

Everyone wears the same thing.

Medina

Wicknight wrote:

See this is the problem. One persons "irrelevant cultural thing" is another persons "religious necessity" .

Yes you are right here.

All I can say is live and let live with regard to this issue.


If people start banning crosses or headscarves I would predict that the education system will start to split into the old way of single faith schools who allow within their own faith things to be worn.

Christians want to wear crosses or rings and Muslims want to wear headscarves or niqabs.

However this way very much stops integration and would be a step backwards as far as I am concerned. Surely allowing people of all faiths to wear what they like as part of their faith (even the pirate stuff harms no one) encourages tolerance and union between faiths.

Zombrex

Medina wrote:

However this way very much stops integration and would be a step backwards as far as I am concerned. Surely allowing people of all faiths to wear what they like as part of their faith (even the pirate stuff harms no one) encourages tolerance and union between faiths.

It does, but then the idea of the school "uniform" kinda goes out the window

Sleepy

IMHO, there's no way she should be allowed wear the ring in school. It's in no way an expression of her religion, merely an expression of her piety and her family's gullability.

JC 2K3

Medina wrote:

Actually it is a religious necessity and in no way a cultural thing.

See, that's what I thought, and then I read some things on the internet about it, including the Islam forum here, and it seems that it isn't a religious necessity at all.

From Wikipedia:

In many Muslim cultures, young girls are not required to wear a hijab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Women.27s_dress

And since Ireland does not have a culture where headscarves are commonly worn, I can't see why it shouldn't be the norm for Irish Muslim women not to wear a hijab.

Medina

Without wanting to divert the thread all I will say is that 'young girls' who have not entered puberty are not required to wear it. Any girl who has entered puberty (started menstruating) is required to wear it. But this should be by your own free will for the love of your Lord . In some countries the government make all females wear it which of course is a cultural thing and not Islamic law.

Acid_Violet

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The Guardian carried a story in the paper yesterday regarding Lydia Playfoot, 16, who has taken her school to the High Court for their insistence that she removes a 'purity' ring. This ring denotes her belief in sexual abstinence until marriage. Her argument is that the right to express ones beliefs is given to kids of other faiths in the school, but not her as a Christian. For their part, the school authorities maintain that thjs expression is not a requirement of Christianity like, for example, the turban would be in Sikhism. In many respects this case seems to resemble the BA employee who was suspended from her job because she refused to remove a cross on a chain she wore.

I'd be particularly interested to hear the views non-Christians - especially atheists - on a persons right to express their faith - be that Christian or whatever. In the case above, I would think that the ring (see the BBC link for a picture) is so unobtrusive to be inconspicuous. Of course, it is more than a mere lump of metal; it carries a specific message. But is that message so dangerous or unappealing that it should come to this?

I would be of the opinion that people should be allowed to express their personal faith - whatever that may be. However, there should be qualifiers to go along with that. For instance, something which is designed to cause offence, an inverted cross for example (haven't seen too many of those in fairness), or is culturally unnerving to some, e.g. a burka, should not be allowed in a otherwise secular environment. I work with women who wear hijab (the headscarf part) and I couldn't give a fiddlers. Why should anyone else?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6230824.stm

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2109483,00.html

I'd say she was forced to remove it because of some strict dress code that forbade jewellery in the school. I suppose if you have all the other pupils obeying that rule and she's not then it would cause problems. She can wear it out of school, it's not that big a deal.

I do agree with Sihkism and the turban though as it's a direct and intrinsic part of their faith. However, you may recall that case where some special needs teacher who didn't wear her burkha to the interview couldn't keep her job because it wasn't feesible for the children as they wouldn't be able to see her face. I don't recall the details exactly, but I'm sure you can agree that certain jobs require certain conditions that religious paraphenalia might obstruct, ie. you can't be a speech and language therapist if you have your face covered.

You should be able to express your beliefs with religious paraphenalia and if I was an employer in a bank I wouldn't mind that woman with the chain or the chastity ring or anything else for that matter. But I really think it's as simple as an institution has the right to set down rules and they must be adhered to, so long as they're reasonable of course, and I think this is reasonable.

I WOULD have a problem with a case taken to court by the parents of some high-school student in ths US on the grounds that the school was imposing on his right to religion and religious views by asking him not to wear a t-shirt saying 'homosexuality is a sin, abortion is wrong and muslims are terrorists; some things are just black and white'. Is it all of a sudden someone's religious rights to advertise their homophobic, anti-islam bigot?

I didn't see the inverted cross thing till then. In fairness, that's not so much to cause offence as to demonstrate someone's disbelief in religion. They also would wear an inverted star (pentagram I think) to show a lack of spiritual belief and that matter is in their opinion above spirituality. It's a philosophy moreso than a belief, and I don't think you can nit-pick in a case like this.

I don't get the OP's comment about not allowing burka's in a secular environment. What's unnerving about it?

Acid_Violet

Sleepy wrote:

IMHO, there's no way she should be allowed wear the ring in school. It's in no way an expression of her religion, merely an expression of her piety and her families gullability.

Asiaprod

Medina wrote:

. Any girl who has entered puberty (started menstruating) is required to wear it. But this should be by your own free will for the love of your Lord .

I think you may need to expand on that statement, to me, that's a contradiction. I cannot equate is required with by your own free will, If its required, its not by your own free will? I just read that as a catch-22 situation.