Valid Expression of Faith?

Fanny Cradock · 23-06-2007 04:00PM #1

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 · 23-06-2007 04:18PM

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 · 23-06-2007 04:23PM

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 · 23-06-2007 04:29PM

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

Fanny Cradock · 23-06-2007 04:32PM

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 · 23-06-2007 04:34PM

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 · 23-06-2007 04:36PM

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 · 23-06-2007 04:38PM

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 · 23-06-2007 04:59PM

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 · 23-06-2007 05:23PM

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 · 23-06-2007 06:02PM

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 · 23-06-2007 06:05PM

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 · 23-06-2007 06:17PM

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 · 23-06-2007 06:32PM

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 · 23-06-2007 06:50PM

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 · 23-06-2007 07:06PM

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 · 23-06-2007 07:24PM

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 · 23-06-2007 07:37PM

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 · 23-06-2007 07:47PM

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 · 23-06-2007 08:35PM

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 · 23-06-2007 08:39PM

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

PDN · 23-06-2007 09:26PM

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 · 23-06-2007 09:29PM

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

PDN · 23-06-2007 09:42PM

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 · 23-06-2007 10:00PM

You learn something new every day....

PDN · 23-06-2007 10:04PM

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 · 23-06-2007 10:17PM

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 · 24-06-2007 12:29AM

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.'

24-06-2007 11:10AM

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 · 24-06-2007 11:24AM

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 · 24-06-2007 11:32AM

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.

Valid Expression of Faith?

Comments