Schoolgirl loses "virginity ring" battle

[almaty 19]

LONDON (Reuters) - A teen-ager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her commitment to virginity lost a High Court fight against the ban Monday.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, says her silver ring is an expression of her faith and had argued in court that it should be exempt from school regulations banning the wearing of jewelry.

"I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage," Playfoot said in a statement.

"I believe that the judge's decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith."

Playfoot's legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.

Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.

Playfoot's parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, a religious group which urges abstinence among young people.

Those who sign up wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4," a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin."

During the case, Playfoot's lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, West Sussex, breached her human rights to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

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.

Playfoot said in her statement she would consult her legal team to consider whether to appeal.

[Fandango 1,439]

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

[featherB 1]

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[homesick_american 1]

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

True, but it's not like the ring was disruptive or preventing anyone else from learning. It's not required by the Christian faith (which doesn't really have a dress code) but neither is the hijab and those are widely tolerated in UK public schools. There does seem to be an anti-Christian PC bias. I'm not even Christian so it's not like I'm paranoid.

[wioombeen 0]

Tripe. purity tripe.

[almaty 19]

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

excellent ...i agree...

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

True, but it's not like the ring was disruptive or preventing anyone else from learning. It's not required by the Christian faith (which doesn't really have a dress code) but neither is the hijab and those are widely tolerated in UK public schools. There does seem to be an anti-Christian PC bias. I'm not even Christian so it's not like I'm paranoid.

Playfoot's legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.

Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.

[homesick_american 1]

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

excellent ...i agree...

Purity ring...what a load of tripe. If you're going to be pure, then just be pure, you don't have to bleat on about it.

True, but it's not like the ring was disruptive or preventing anyone else from learning. It's not required by the Christian faith (which doesn't really have a dress code) but neither is the hijab and those are widely tolerated in UK public schools. There does seem to be an anti-Christian PC bias. I'm not even Christian so it's not like I'm paranoid.

Playfoot's legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.

Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.

I lived in the UK for six years; I saw plenty of schoolgirls with head coverings. They're allowed in a lot of schools.

I just don't see the big deal; what's so disruptive about a ring?

[almaty 19]

i think they developed rules regarding jewelry and the ring is that...i do not think it is a shot at any religion ...of course, i am not from Britian, so i may be wrong

[Saddle Bronc 124]

A chastity ring is certainly a lot less disruptive than an openly-displayed 8" kirpan ("ceremonial" dagger, worn by initiated male Sikhs).

[homesick_american 1]

i think they developed rules regarding jewelry and the ring is that...i do not think it is a shot at any religion ...of course, i am not from Britian, so i may be wrong

I'm not from Britain either; I just lived there. It did seem to me that UK society in general had little to no respect for the Christian faith or its followers.

A chastity ring is certainly a lot less disruptive than an openly-displayed 8" kirpan ("ceremonial" dagger, worn by initiated male Sikhs).

Yeah, but a chastity ring isn't required by the Christian faith; I heard Sikh males are required to wear a kirpan. Even though it's not required it's a very unobtrusive piece of jewelry. I just don't see why the school had to make such a fuss.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I just don't see why the school had to make such a fuss.

Schools are run by self-important, pompous bureacrats who couldn't get better jobs when they were young. That's why.

[homesick_american 1]

I just don't see why the school had to make such a fuss.

Schools are run by self-important, pompous bureacrats who couldn't get better jobs when they were young. That's why.

It wouldn't even make a ripple here; nobody here would care.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

A chastity ring is certainly a lot less disruptive than an openly-displayed 8" kirpan ("ceremonial" dagger, worn by initiated male Sikhs).

Yeah, but a chastity ring isn't required by the Christian faith; I heard Sikh males are required to wear a kirpan. Even though it's not required it's a very unobtrusive piece of jewelry. I just don't see why the school had to make such a fuss.

Even initiated Sikh males are not required to display the kirpan or kada openly (and it is permissible--actually, mandatory since 1982--to remove the kirpan for reasons such as airline security); uninitiated males are not required to wear it at all.

While a chastity ring is not required of Christians, it looks like it is required of members of this sect; so the decision to ban it was absolutely chopfrack!