'Chastity ring' girl loses case

[TuxThePenguin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6900512.stm

 

[craigerNY]

No surprise. Rules are rules and they were broken. I certainly see no harm in retooling the rules to allow them though. As disturbing as I find the "purity ring" thing that is a separate thread which we have had a couple of times at least. I see no harm in a dress code that would alow it.

 

[trunks2k]

I'm not surprised. It was a pretty straightforward case. There is a dress code, she broke it. Exceptions are allowed for dress that is required for religious reasons. Chastity rings are not required garb for Christians.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

... "but her father Phil, who is a pastor, said she wanted to pursue the case because of its wider significance for all Christians"... [bolding mine]

Does anyone believe it was all her and Phil had nothing to do with it?

.."Miss Playfoot's father to pay £12,000 towards the school's legal costs."

Maybe this will help dissuade the next one.

I agree with Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society

""The case was a manipulative attempt to impose a particular religious viewpoint on this school and, presumably, on other schools if this case had been won."

 

[LilGeorgiaPeach81]

I just don't see how wearing a ring or letting someone wear a ring imposes any message on the school. Isn't that why Indian girls wear a dot on their forehead, to show chastity?

 

[DhaliClone]

I just don't see how wearing a ring or letting someone wear a ring imposes any message on the school.

It doesn't matter whether or not it imposes a message. The school had a dress-code, and she broke that dress-code, and got punished for it. If someone were to wear any other ring that wasn't allowed, they would get punished in the same way.

For example, a Catholic student would (should) be allowed to wear ash on Ash Wednesday without violating the dress code.

Isn't that why Indian girls wear a dot on their forehead, to show chastity?

Not Indians, but Hindus. Not all Indians are Hindus. The dot has an actual religious importance. She chose on her own to wear a chastity ring, it's not in itself a religious thing.

 

[Pogue]

I just don't see how wearing a ring or letting someone wear a ring imposes any message on the school. Isn't that why Indian girls wear a dot on their forehead, to show chastity?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/reddot.asp

 

[LilGeorgiaPeach81]

http://www.snopes.com/religion/reddot.asp

Ok well it represents piety instead of chastity, but isn't it considered pious among Hindus to be chaste?

 

[MomWhoThinks]

School dress codes forbidding jewlery? That's just stupid, and stupid rules need to be challenged.

 

[Jonathan David]

I agree with mom. This is a stupid rule. If she wants to wear that silly ring, she should be able to. Dress codes are silly in general but this is absurd. If she were a teacher, then I would say that she should not wear it. Teachers are authority figures who, in some way, are representatives of the state (teaching a government-developed curriculum, paid by gov't, etc). But, in a school, the students should be allowed to wear whatever they want provided that they don't offend the community standard for decency and provided that said standard does not offend the notions of equality and non-discrimination. Who cares if it is religiously-mandated or not?

 

[DhaliClone]

School dress codes forbidding jewlery? That's just stupid, and stupid rules need to be challenged.

OK, so challenge them on a legislative basis. Try to get the policy changed via a school board vote.

I thought "conservatives" were against judges legislating from the bench. Oh, wait, that's only if it's something they disagree with, nevermind. The hypocracy is amazing.

 

[MomWhoThinks]

I'm not a "conservative" I'm just infavor of common sense.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The school dress code exists for two reasons 1) its an equalizer; making rich and poor pupils indistinguishable. 2) Health and safety.. the school I went to didn't have a jewelery ban initially but it was introduced because of injuries. For example a girl had to go to A&E because she was involved in an incident with a fellow pupil and had one of her earings ripped out... Blood everywhere!

 

[Jonathan David]

The school dress code exists for two reasons 1) its an equalizer; making rich and poor pupils indistinguishable. 2) Health and safety.. the school I went to didn't have a jewelery ban initially but it was introduced because of injuries. For example a girl had to go to A&E because she was involved in an incident with a fellow pupil and had one of her earings ripped out... Blood everywhere!

My understanding is that anyone who has been to a private school (and I do not count myself among them) will tell you that, despite uniforms, there are plenty of ways of distinguishing class and coolness. I have heard that shoes take on disproportionate importance as they are not often a part of the uniform beyond a requirement that they be "black." As for the ban on jewelry, I would argue that it is overly broad. If we are concerned about earring, permit studs but not large hoops. I am not sure how rings come into play. I suppose that you can make a punch hurt more with a ring... but at that point, a rule isn't fixing much. I mean, a punch is going to hurt one way or the other. And, if violence gets out of control, perhaps the purity ring thing girl can start a "thou shall not deck thy classmate" bracelet thing.

I'm just being snarky. I get the supposed benefits of the uniform. I just don't like the method. I would rather that we lived in a society that erased class difference... rather than just masking it beneath a kilt.

 

[SteveAtheist]

School dress codes forbidding jewlery? That's just stupid, and stupid rules need to be challenged.

I went to an all boys Catholic school that forbade jewelry, with the exception of Senior rings. No necklaces that showed, no earrings or piercings of any kind.

Do you think that it was stupid of them to dissallow jewelry in my school?

BTW - we also had hair cut rules, shoe rules, belt rules and a whole bunch of other stuff.

 

[CCGirl]

I am glad she lost this ridiculous case. If you dont like the rules, try to implement change through school boards, etc.

 

[MomWhoThinks]

I went to an all boys Catholic school that forbade jewelry, with the exception of Senior rings. No necklaces that showed, no earrings or piercings of any kind.

Do you think that it was stupid of them to dissallow jewelry in my school?

BTW - we also had hair cut rules, shoe rules, belt rules and a whole bunch of other stuff.

So why the exception for senior rings? Because the school made money off them? What about married students? No weddings rings?! I can see setting uniform standards, but not double standards that discriminate against a persons religion and micromanages what kind of jewelry they can wear. If a crucifix is okay, a star of David necklace should pass as well. If a class ring or wedding ring is fine, a purity ring shouldn't be banned.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

My understanding is that anyone who has been to a private school (and I do not count myself among them) will tell you that, despite uniforms, there are plenty of ways of distinguishing class and coolness. I have heard that shoes take on disproportionate importance as they are not often a part of the uniform beyond a requirement that they be "black." As for the ban on jewelry, I would argue that it is overly broad. If we are concerned about earring, permit studs but not large hoops. I am not sure how rings come into play. I suppose that you can make a punch hurt more with a ring... but at that point, a rule isn't fixing much. I mean, a punch is going to hurt one way or the other. And, if violence gets out of control, perhaps the purity ring thing girl can start a "thou shall not deck thy classmate" bracelet thing.

I'm just being snarky. I get the supposed benefits of the uniform. I just don't like the method. I would rather that we lived in a society that erased class difference... rather than just masking it beneath a kilt.

It was a stud earing

The whole point of an uniform is well to make pupils "uniform" true there is a certain amount of earning "coolness" through having slightly nicer uniforms but people are not prepared to go as far as normal clothing that can be worn in and out of school.

The question I ask myself is why would a student want to wear jewelery in school?

 

[SteveAtheist]

So why the exception for senior rings? Because the school made money off them? What about married students? No weddings rings?! I can see setting uniform standards, but not double standards that discriminate against a persons religion and micromanages what kind of jewelry they can wear. If a crucifix is okay, a star of David necklace should pass as well. If a class ring or wedding ring is fine, a purity ring shouldn't be banned.

I was relating the rules at my school in response to your calling a 'no jewelry' rule 'stupid'. The rules in my school, and probably many others, were not to discriminate against a persons religion. There are many valid reasons for not allowing jewelry, some of which have been listed on this board. Class distiction is one, and uniformity of appearance is another. For instance, a school that wants to prevent multiple face pearcings and economic disctincions may make a sweeping 'no jewelry' rule to avert any possible conflicts.

In this girls case, the rule was in place before she wore the ring and she broke that rule, regardless of 'why' she wore the ring. This is not about religous persecution, its just about the rules applying to all students equally.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

It looks like, from the information that I've been able to uncover, that they're banning other types of religious wear as well.