Say a prayer for Lydia Playfoot who is today taking her school to the High Court over her claim to the right to wear the Silver Ring as a symbol of Christian purity.The ‘Silver Ring Thing’ is a Christian education project aimed at helping teenage girls value themselves, make right choices about their futures, and reduce Britain's ever-increasing rise in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies amongst teenagers.
The case is being brought under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which reads:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship support Lydia in her challenge. Lydia will be represented today in Court by barrister Paul Diamond, who also represents Nadia of the ‘British Airways 'Cross' case.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The Governors at Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, banned Lydia from wearing her small silver ring, saying that it broke the school’s uniform policy. However, any "public order" argument on this basis is somewhat undermined by the fact that their uniform policy allows Muslims to wear headscarves and Sikhs to wear Kara bracelets. As Lydia has said, the school's uniform policy is 'discriminatory' as it allows all faiths, except Christians, to wear items symbolic of their beliefs.
This is an important case which highlights the general trend in public life that bans all forms of discrimination except discrimination against Christians. It is a good day for the case to be held as it is the feast of St John Fisher and St Thomas More. May their prayers aid Lydia and her barrister!
18 comments:
I thought the government was worried about teenage pregnancies...
Just saw it on the TV. Good luck to her..it's a great idea...can i order 8 please!
Woo Hoo - Go Lydia!!!!!
What a terrific inspiration to us all. Lydia certainly has the tenacity of her Patron Saint.
St Lydia defied the Emperor Hadrian (2nd Century) and was martyred for her Faith on his orders. But not before some amazing escapes from boiling oil and sulphur - read her lifestory. truely amazing.
I am sure our present day Lydia will be victorious in her brilliant efforts. God Bless her. Who says our youth has gone to the dogs, it's simply that the media and press coverage is ALWAYS focused on the negative and never the positive.
As a father of six children, four of them daughters, I strongly welcome the 'silver ring' initiative and am shocked that a school would see it as something that requires banning.
Fervent prayers for Lydia!
There is a big difference between items which need to be worn as required by one's religion, and those which a merely nice to have, however much they may be revered as devotional aids, or however much cultural tradition is behind them.
Even wearing a crucifix, unless it is part of ecclesiastical dress or a religious habit, is essentially an entirely optional "badge" or, more often, merely jewellery. As for the "silver ring thing", before this fuss neither you nor I nor anyone else had ever heard of it, much less as a "Christian symbol, necessarily worn".
We're drawing our battle lines in the wrong place.
I went to a talk given by charity Life last night and apparently the govt asked teenagers what they wanted to learn in sex-ed. No 1 on the list was 'how to say NO' - needless to say the govt ignored this as this goes against their ideology of free love etc. There really is an evil agenda behind sex-ed and the govt don't actually care about the amount of pregnancies - because they want social chaos and when that happens the state can intervene commie style.
Disgraceful that they won't encourage teens to say NO!!!
Dominie
there is a website dedicated to Lydia's case- you can donate towards the legal expenses
if you put Lydia Playfoot into google - it comes up with the details
I am not as technically minded as you Father so I have no idea how to attach the link
Dominie
Dominie thanks for reminding me. Here is the Lydia Playfoot site
Londiniensis - actually I had heard of this and admired the idea some time ago. It is not simply a devotional aid but a symbol of commitment. It could be argued that it is not essential to wear it if school rules forbid it. However it is clearly discriminatory if the school allows other religious artefacts and not this.
It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of battle line that we need to draw. If we simply roll over on all these issues, we will lose a lot of ground very quickly.
She could in theory be married at the age of 16, would the school prevent her from wearing a wedding ring?
Good on her for taking a stand on this.
I appreciate Londoniensis' point, but the British legal system and thus any rules, rights and obligations thus derived, is based on fairness, and I think we ought to extend that fairness to being sensible regarding even non-mandatory items of dress.
Apologies, Father, for my hasty and rather arrogant implication that you had not previously been aware of the "silver ring".
But with your permission I would like to take you up on your point about religious artefacts. For example, the wearing of a steel bracelet is a definite requirement laid down by the Sikh religion. On the other hand, the wearing of a face covering by Muslim women appears not to be a strict requirement, but something that developed culturally and differently in different times and places (no consensus among Muslim scolars, however).
Not all artefacts are equal. I agree with Mark that fairness and commonsense should prevail, but non-denominational schools (and airlines!) do need to draw the line somewhere. The army already "recognises" Wiccans and Satanists - heaven only knows what "symbols" children might come into school wearing.
Whyever can't Lydia wear her ring on a chain round her neck under her blouse? Sikhs and Mormons wear special undergarments, many Christians wear medals and scapulars, no one is any the wiser. Why must everything be "in your face" - whatever happened to humility and modesty?
Londiniensis
could you advise us as to where our battle lines should be drawn? I am not being facetious just genuinely interested.
My teens wear chastity rings. They are flat and simple with a simple message engraved.;
My son's says "A Man's stength..." and my daughter's "True Love Waits".
I had to buy the rings from the USA, and hope one day (when I get the chance) to promote them among friends.
As I home ed there's no 'school' problem. ;)
God bless Miss Playfoot.
(and how many sikh bangles are in the school? How many hajib's-which are not required by Islamic law either I might add)
Londiniensis - I think it is a question of witnessing to modesty in an immodest world. The European Convention has it about right, I think, in saying that everyone has the right to manifest their religious convictions subject only to those limitations which are necessary for public order, health, morals etc. The school has been high-handed in identifying the silver ring as simply a piece of jewellery.
It is unfair, I think, to suggest that Lydia is being proud or immodest. She has found herself in an argument that has focussed on her faith and her right to express it; and has, courageously in my opinion, decided to fight.
This is where we come back to the "battle lines" question. I think we must fight these battles, each and every one of them, while we still have the freedom to do so.
I would think that schools, where a captive audience is constantly being indoctrinated into promiscuity through sex-ed, is the very place where one would want to have such reminders of one's promises of chastity and commitment to Christian virtues.
Are our symbols of Faith and commitment a mere 'badge'? Why should Christians have risked their lives wearing symbols of fish when persecutions were frequent and informants could easily tell what those symbols meant? That there is no religious 'law' that forces one to wear a cross or a ring does not mean that the individual cannot have a deep commitment to their Faith and a desire to either express that Faith, identify themselves as believers to be recognized by other believers (as did our first Christians) or to remind themselves of their own commitment to strengthen resolve against temptations (as married couples wear bands) It is indeed high handed to tell a person "This symbol of your intent to remain chaste is too religious for us and you must take it off. Now, put this condom in your pocket 'just in case'."
I think we Christians have passively allowed the battle lines be drawn much too deep into our territory by the world. Father is right about those battle lines - one day we will all wake from our pleasant naps and wonder why there are no freedoms left for us at all. If one is afraid of or embarrased by these little battles, one will hardly stand and face the big ones.
I entirely agree with Londiniensis. Also, we should be weary of the Silver Ring Thing. It is hugely commercialised (e.g. the rings are quite costly to teenagers) and some US Christians have expressed concerns about the commercial nature.
We let our teens buy their own ring. One chose a sterling silver and blue enameled Miraculous Medal ring, another a slender gold Crucifix ring. Their father placed each girl's ring on their finger and told them to honor God and keep themselves pure. He also said that he would remove their ring on their wedding day to be replaced with a wedding band.
One does not need to bend to commercialism, and the use of a ring to symbolize a commitment to chastity is a good idea.
Well, I'm always suspicious of showily successful religious initiatives, am always telling myself off for it. But then it usually turns out that there's something a bit odd in the background. The long rant about Denise Pfeiffer is perhaps not so relevant to anything, but there is material worth considering:
The Silver Bling Thing and part two, less interesting because mostly about the said Pfeiffer
Asexual Nazis for God
Don't be put off reading the first post by the title of the second, it's not just ranting!
Post a Comment