The Ring Thing - Christianity Under Attack

[Theland]

A girl goes to cour today to fight for the right to wear a Christian ring in school, the school object saying it is not necessary as a token of her beliefs. She says is it as it is called the "Ring Thing" and is an outward statement of her commitment to chastity.
Muslims are allowed the hijab, and sikhs wear bangles, so why can't this girl wear her ring?
What do you think?

[ludwig]

The french have got the right idea about this. No religious clothing, jewellery, or silly hats of any kind allowed in state schools. End of story. You don't like it? that's fine - start your own school.

[jake-the-peg]

I think religion has absolutely no place in a public place of education.

If people want to send their children to a religous school that's their decision, but banning religion from public schools is one thing our American cousins have absolutely right.

Unfortunately we seem to have a couple of charlies running the country who seek guidance by grovelling on their knees,( - then when George Bush goes home they start to pray) so I don't see it changing any time soon.

I suspect the school will soon back down to the hoardes of whining Daily Mailers squarking "PC, PC"

[rojash]

The ring is not part of the Christian religion - wearing jewellery to boast about chastity is no different from wearing jewellery for any other reason. If the school's rules ban jewellery, then that's simple and straightforward and applies to everyone.

[Reverandfunk]

Spot on Ludwig.

[missrandom]

I think either there should be no jewellery or religous things for absoloutely every child at the school, or everyone should be able to wear exactly what they want to. but you cant have one rule for one and another for everyone else.

[Goodsoulette]

I love this ring thing. I read about it years ago when it started in America. It means that they promise not to have sex out of marriage. Now surely this could well change and in 3 years time in a loving relationship she may want to have sex with her boyfriend. I think she is a very smart girl and schools should be actively encouraging children to only want to partake in sex in the right relationship.

If I was her mum I would be very proud of her and fight with her. Its not a Christian thing surely.

At my work we were not allowed any jewellry of any form, not even a wedding band. Yet when a girl had a sikh wedding and she had to wear her bracelet after for a period of time, it was allowed. So everyone just came in with their wedding bands on.

As long as a religious accessory does not prevent someone from wearing the uniform or makes thing unsafe for them then I do not see the issue. Jewelry should be made to be removed during PE, H.E. and maybe during practical science but who gives a stuff either. How can you promote religious tolerance if no religion is allowed to be displayed.

[cameo]

I agree with you missrandom.
One rule for everyone, no matter what their beliefs.

[chompu]

The school where I worked banned all jewellery on the grounds of health and safety. If you have seen someone who has lost a finger through catching a ring on a wire fence, as I have, then you would understand why.

[IggyB]

i support the separation of religion and state - and this goes for state schools too. However the banning of all religious paraphernalia would be very uncomfortable for those minority religions that require some form garment to adhere to their faith properly and as it would only affect these minorities in any extreme way and have no impact upon Christians, for example, i think an outright ban would cause division and seperation from a young age (when muslim children for exampleare removed from a school because they cannot where a head scalf etc) - which in the end would cause a lot more trouble than its worth.

However in this case i don't think religion comes into the argument - its just a girl that wants to break the school rules and wear a ring... i may be showing my ignorance here but i have never heard of a branch of christinaity that requires the wearing of a ring so this cannot be compared with a muslim girl wearing a head scarf or a hindu girl wearing bangles a festival time.

[jno]

quite right, IggyB: if a girl turned up in a bikini, claiming her particular branch of Christianity (The Church of the Holy Navel perhaps) required her to wear it, the school would send her home. I don't know what its attitude to crucifixes is - they are genuine, widely accepted Christian symbols; but rings are just a fad. There are other ways of reminding yourself to be chaste.

[anotheoldgit]

I get fed up to my back teeth with this constant obsession of trying to turn Christians into some kind of second class citizens.

It's ok for Mulims to wear this, it's ok for Sikhs to wear that, etc, etc. but the wearing of this or that isn't part of the Christians religion, so therefore should be banned.

Faith is the way people conduct their lives, no matter what is the correct correct clothing or symbol one needs to wear to follow their religion. So If this ring is a personal show of commitment this girl has chosen to take for her own very own reasons then good for her.

If she looses her case then may I suggest that she has the ring's symbolic markings tattooed around her finger, then there is sod all anyone can do about this, and she can then always wear the ring in her own time, until such times as this becomes forbidden also.

[WoWo]

Goodsoulette - The fact her stance on chastity is to be admired (or not) is a non-issue, she can abstain from sex before marriage with or without a ring on her finger.

IggyB - It is not a requirement for Muslim women to wear head coverings it is simply a cultural convention. Only baptised Sikhs are required to wear a bangle (as part of the 5 K's) and that generally happens after they have left school.

On what I think, the school bans rings therefore she shouldn't be wearing one, if she wants equallity then she should argue the case that other pupils should also conform to the dress code rather than the that she should be allowed to not adhere to it.

[Supernick]

Some religions such as Islam and Sikhism require their followers to dress in a particular way, or wear particular garments as part of their faith. Christianity has no such doctrine. Believers may wish to advertise their faith by means of wearing jewellry, but it is not a required part of their faith.
In many schools, all non-essential religious adornments may be banned, and so all christian jewellry is, as is all non-essential Muslim adornments. Turn up to school with a Muslim medallion and you'll be asked to take it off.
Why do Christians feel the need to compete with other religions as if they're somehow missing out by not having outward, visible signs of faith?
I personally would remove religion from schools entirely, but the current rules seem perfectly equal to me

[wizard69]

Absolutly agree with some of the previous posts, all religious symbolism should be removed from schools. Schools are places of education, not places of worship.
I have some sympathy with you Theland. Although I am an atheist, I know of lots of instances where non christian religious pupils have been favoured over christian ones (eg. celebrating Eid but not christmas, been allowed to dress in muslim clothing but not been allowed to wear a crucifix). But this is exactly why ALL religious symbolism should be banned from places of education...its devisive.
If I were to turn up at school stark b*llock naked, claiming that I had a right to do so as an atheistic naturist, I would expect that you would object to that even if your daughter was allowed to wear a religious symbol...

[Whickerman]

As an aside, read this portion of a report into the Silver Ring Thing:
The American Silver Ring Thing campaign to promote sexual abstinence has a failure rate that is alarming, 88%, made worse by the fact that when they did succumb and have sex, they were 20% less likely to use a condom, hence risking both pregnancy and STIs, the very things it sets out to combat. It is very worrying that the worst sexual advice for teenagers from the country with the worst teenage pregnacy rate is being imported to this country,which already has a serious problem.

Further:
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php? id=392

I disagree that this is not about religion - it's a system rooted in evangelist fundamentalist Christianity - so I think that the girl in question just may win her case. The fact that she may actually alarms me.

[pastafreak]

Contrary to jake-the-peg's reference to seperation of church and state in American public schools: tho the overt practice of any particular religion or faith is banned...the expression of belief via clothing (headscarves or yarmulka),jewellery(crucifix,Star of David) IS fully supported, as freedom of speech and religion -and their expression -are amongst the basic rights contained in the Constitution.

[Theland]

Ah Wizard 69, common sense! As a Christian, I have no objection to a level playing field, ban the lot or let everybody do their own thing. Not one rule for one and one for the other.
Again as a Christian, it is my duty to evangelise, spread the word etc, but not if it causes offence, breaks rules etc. Why do we kow tow to other cultures but don't allow this young girl to express herself? What if she were a Goth? Or a Punk? Or whatever? Yes I'm all for school uniform as long as it includes the cultural aliens who are taking over it seems.

[Pippa68]

It's worth noting that this girl does not attend a church school. As has been said, the ring is not connected to her religion in any case ~ a crucifix, maybe..but even that isn't a religious requirement.

As she is taking the relevent body to court on religious grounds, it is all pretty ridiculous. Regarding sexual behaviour, all her religion asks is that she remains chaste until betrothal..not that she wears a ring to show other members of the public.

How much is this costing, anyway? I find that more revolting that the fact her 'rights' are being taken away, to be honest.

[jno]

this isn't really a religious case, it's a commercial case. As I understand it, the girl's parents have the franchise to run the Ring Thing in Britain. They sell courses; and you have to pay for the rings too. So they have an investment to protect. Looks like her father is the driving force in all this - persuading his daughter to go to court over it. Is that the action of a good parent? I wonder. At any rate, there's nothing in the Bible about wearing rings; God must have supposed you could be chaste without them.