U.K. schoolgirl loses ‘virginity ring’ court battle

[AHSPanther23]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19806312/?GT1=10150

 

Let the war of words begin! What say you?

[cch5432]

I guess the girl. Why is there a ban on jewelry in the first place?

[titletownclown]

The following bolded text from the referenced article is troubling to me.

 

Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry.

 

They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

 

My question is: In what manner is the school determining what is integral to the Christian faith and what is not? What is integral to the Christian faith probably differs from one person to the next. The HIGHLY subjective nature of this rule causes greats doubts as to the fairness in the methods for which it is applied imo.

[the mathemagician]

A virgin by the name of Playfoot...just too good!

[the mathemagician]

Maybe she can wear it on her toe.

[IM4THEHOUNDS]

The following bolded text from the referenced article is troubling to me.

 

Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry.

 

They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

 

My question is: In what manner is the school determining what is integral to the Christian faith and what is not? What is integral to the Christian faith probably differs from one person to the next. The HIGHLY subjective nature of this rule causes greats doubts as to the fairness in the methods for which it is applied imo.

If other religious jewelry is allowed hers should be too. This is highly subjective and seems unfair. I agree.

[cshs81]

The following bolded text from the referenced article is troubling to me.

 

Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry.

 

They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

 

My question is: In what manner is the school determining what is integral to the Christian faith and what is not? What is integral to the Christian faith probably differs from one person to the next. The HIGHLY subjective nature of this rule causes greats doubts as to the fairness in the methods for which it is applied imo.

 

Courts have to make the decisions that are subjective. If I decided that my low-riding jeans with holes in them expressed my belief in Christianity, the court would not(and should not) uphold my right to wear it to a school that forbids such clothing.

 

The bolded part troubles me in no way. The court used common sense to allow TRADITIONAL (or integral) jewelry for ALL religions.

 

Simple case. The girl cannot wear the ring if the school forbids jewelry.

[titletownclown]

Courts have to make the decisions that are subjective. If I decided that my low-riding jeans with holes in them expressed my belief in Christianity, the court would not(and should not) uphold my right to wear it to a school that forbids such clothing.

 

The bolded part troubles me in no way. The court used common sense to allow TRADITIONAL (or integral) jewelry for ALL religions.

 

Simple case. The girl cannot wear the ring if the school forbids jewelry.

 

It is not a simple case. These cases rarely are. A SIMPLE scenario would be for the school to forbid ALL religious jewelry or to allow it. However, I doubt that will materialize. I understand your opinion, but I still have a problem with the courts determining what is "integral" to an individual's personal belief system.

[titletownclown]

It is not a simple case. These cases rarely are. I understand your opinion, but I still have a problem with the courts determining what is "integral" to an individual's personal belief system.

 

^ That's what I meant to say. oops.

[UKBLUE1964]

I didn't realize the ACLU had expanded overseas.

[cshs81]

It is not a simple case. These cases rarely are. A SIMPLE scenario would be for the school to forbid ALL religious jewelry or to allow it. However, I doubt that will materialize. I understand your opinion, but I still have a problem with the courts determining what is "integral" to an individual's personal belief system.

 

Why do you have a problem with it? Its their job. Its why we have them in place.

 

I will respectfully disagree when you say its not a simple case. This is nothing more than Christians looking for a fight. A ring is now a Christian symbol?

[titletownclown]

Why do you have a problem with it? Its their job. Its why we have them in place.

 

I will respectfully disagree when you say its not a simple case. This is nothing more than Christians looking for a fight. A ring is now a Christian symbol?

 

Was it "Christians looking for a fight" when the Crucifix exception was made? Was it "Muslims looking for a fight" when they took their concerns before the court?

 

I fully understand the concept of subjectivity and how the courts (both here and abroad) have to make very subjective decisions. However, I also have the right to disagree with those decisions which is what I am currently doing. The basis of my argument is the court's determination of what is "integral" and what is not. The girl's belief that having sex outside of marriage to be immoral is based on scripture as referenced in the article. The Bible is an "integral" part of the Christian religion I would argue. Therefore, a ring symbolizing a belief that is rooted in scripture could be considered to be "integral" imo.

 

As far as your question about a ring "now" being a Christian symbol, why not? If the Crucifix is symbolic of Christ's suffering why can't a ring be symbolic of Christian sexual morality?

 

I have no idea of how the appeals process works in the U.K., but according to the article, the girl is consulting with her legal team to consider an appeal.

[spindoc]

Was it "Christians looking for a fight" when the Crucifix exception was made? Was it "Muslims looking for a fight" when they took their concerns before the court?

 

I fully understand the concept of subjectivity and how the courts (both here and abroad) have to make very subjective decisions. However, I also have the right to disagree with those decisions which is what I am currently doing. The basis of my argument is the court's determination of what is "integral" and what is not. The girl's belief that having sex outside of marriage to be immoral is based on scripture as referenced in the article. The Bible is an "integral" part of the Christian religion I would argue. Therefore, a ring symbolizing a belief that is rooted in scripture could be considered to be "integral" imo.

 

As far as your question about a ring "now" being a Christian symbol, why not? If the Crucifix is symbolic of Christ's suffering why can't a ring be symbolic of Christian sexual morality?

 

I have no idea of how the appeals process works in the U.K., but according to the article, the girl is consulting with her legal team to consider an appeal.

Couldn't agree more.:thumb:

[HHSDad]

The school should not be making any exceptions, including the crucifix. If you have a no jewelry policy, and they want to wear religious jewelry, then go to a school that allows it. If that means a private school, then so beit.

[goherd96]

The Crucifix has been a religious icon for centuries, same with Muslim and Sikh items...not so with the ring. Ergo, the ring has not stood the test of time to be recognized as a religious symbol.