“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 Monday. Schoolgirl loses 'virginity ring' fight - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com
I doubt Christ gives a hoot about purity rings or Jesus fish or crucifixes for that matter, I hope she and her folks get over themselves
Those purity ring deals get blown out of proportion so much around here. I totally agree with the ruling: there's nothing integral to the faith of Christianity about a purity ring. It's being made a bigger deal than it should be. The cynic in me points to it being a publicity stunt to give the concept of a chastity ring more publicity in the UK. They're all over the place in the US. I can respect a person who wants to wait until marriage to have sex, but making a public commitment with a ceremony puts that much more pressure on a person and makes it a much bigger deal if they happen to slip up -- horny teenagers ultimately being horny teenagers to the end of it all. The other facet of that is that it causes religious couples to get married really early. I know kids right out of high school or even in high school who are now engaged or even married, and again, the cynic in me is sitting and thinking there's only one reason why they're getting married, and it's not a good reason in my opinion. The chastity ring stuff just bothers me. Sex is sex is sex. If you make it that big a deal, it's going to disappoint. That was the thing I noticed most about going to College. People do not care if anyone else is having sex, they don't think it's a huge deal, and if they do, they are thinking with a high school brain. I guess maturity, ultimately, is minding your own business. Whatever. Cynicism reigns supreme with me.
I simply object to the girl suggesting she should be allowed to wear it as a sign of her religion. If your religion doesn't say you have to wear it, then obey the rules. Because your religion actually does tell you to obey the rules, stupid girl.
Quite. So when shall we start selling our "I shall not kill" bracelets and "I don't covert my neighbour's ass" thongs ?
...thongs? I was in the wrong community! ...and Kat has a talent for giving one mental images one could have lived without.
I'd actually buy one of those rubber bracelets with "Thou shalt not kill" on it. And I think Kat has a +10 in "Craft: Disturbing image"
My only point was that they would be about as christian as the virginity ring. It's purely a marketing thing, surfing on the wave of pro-abstinence movements that were mainly revived by the AIDS epidemic (and Britney Spears... yeah, well, we all saw where that got her eh !), and making such a fuss of not being allowed to wear it in school is just plain daft. I could just as well have imagined young jewish boys (or muslims, as Roman pointed out) wearing "I'm circumcised" badges or tee-shirts. Why want to show off that you're just complying with the rules of your religion (when that particular rule does not imply any visible sign) if not for the sole purpose of showing off ? If you want to convert other people to doing things your way, it should be by telling them about them and why you chose to, not because you get a cute ring if you join the Virgin Club.
Did I get it right from the article that wearing jewelry was prohibited by the girl's school as such, no matter what, and she tried to be made an exception?
Yes. The school makes exceptions for items that are an integral part of religious tradition, (crucifixes, veils, etc.) but the chastity ring certainly isn't. Also, her parents are the British leaders of the American group that promote and sell the rings, so yeah, guess who's winning from the noise this story is making ! It's not even about her right to wear the ring, it's just so the product gets the headlines for a few weeks. Lame.
It's not just daft. It also reduces the religion of the person in question to little more than marketing and crass commercialism, which isn't all that good as far as religious people are concerned. Unless of course, 'religion' is merely a synonym of 'sorority club'. Though I admit that I found the idea of a "I'm circumcised" badge kind of funny. :wink:
I think a lot of religious symbols that people wear are just badges that tell everyone which belief system they follow, they all had to be brand new at some point in history but we tend to, for some odd reason, attach more importance to stuff that was started a long time ago - even if it would seem silly if someone tried to start the same thing now. Where a virginity ring, or whatever, makes a single statement about the wearer, some artifacts that people wear have a whole book ascribed to them. P.S. This doesn't stop the above drama being very silly of course.
When does a cult become a religion? When does a movement within a religion deserve to be protected? Is this a manifestation of a person's spirituality? Should expressions of individual spirituality be protected? At what point do "human rights" apply to a person? If a child is forced by law to attend a school does that child have freedom of speech and assembly? Would we be viewing this differently if instead of a chastity ring, it WAS an anti violence/anti killing ring? Can Sikh school children carry ceremonial daggers, and attempt to grow beards?
I'd just like to say that i'm 100% in support* of any and all religious movements that inadvertently lead to massive rises in the number of people practicing oral and anal sex. Hell, I think these 'chastity rings' should be fuckin manditory. *I was going to say 'behind', but then i realize i was going to be using the words 'anal sex' later in the sentence, and decided not to 'spill the beans' too early with a pun*. then i went and made a worse one just there. *'lead to massive rises' does not count as a pun in this context.
I went to school with a Sikh who was bearded (in the sixth form, anyway), but as far as I know, he wasn't allowed to carry a dagger - unless he was forbidden from mentioning it (would have been hard to hide the beard). Considering that hair is considered sacred by some Sikhs, then it would have been difficult for the school to refuse, even if they did insist on the other pupils being clean shaven and with sensible haircuts.
Probably risk of theft + throwback to the days when jewelry was the easiest way to flaunt your (or your parents') wealth...
The reasons we were given in school are these: Children fiddle with their jewellery which can be distracting and sometimes disgusting. Children in school are supposed to present themselves smartly, which means wearing uniform (shirts tucked in, skirts not too short etc), having an appropriate haircut (ie, short for boys, except for Sikhs, who have always been allowed to wear turbans in all the schools I've been in) and not wearing items for display such as makeup, jewellery, hairdye in unnatural colours, nailvarnish and so on. Wearing jewellery can be dangerous in some circumstances, and even permitted jewellery (usually one pair of earrings for girls) had to be removed for lessons such as PE and Technology (working with wood, metal, food or textiles). Rather than teachers constantly having to make judgement calls on whether or not something is appropriate, it's easier just to have a blanket ruling.
It all depends on how societies view the matter. There is no Perfect Law, just a set of collectively accepted rules that change over time. As much as libertarianism sounds appealing, it does not work when you put actual human beings into it.
I was eating. That's even more dangerous edited after a moment of thought: um, don't steam engines need steam?
Steam engines need water and heat. The burning coal provides the heat and the water provides the steam. The steam then turns the turbine or whatever the machine is using and translates it into power.
Actually, Redneck, that's not entirely true. While ultimately steam engines need water and heat, they can't use them directly. Steam engines are external combustion engines. That is, the actual burning of the fuel happens outside of the steam engine itself, and the steam is then pumped to the steam engine. The boiler where the steam is produced is not properly part of the engine; that is, the part that does the work.
