July 17, 2007 1:49 PM
The continuing campaign to deny Christians rights
As the world slides into chaos:
In the UK, while Muslim and Sikh girls may wear head scarves and bracelets in school, Christian girls may not wear purity rings.
Lydia's family took her school to court. The outcome: not only did they lose, but they were ordered to pay the school's attorney fees. Read the story here.
Can you believe this? Reminds me of the Kansas City airport putting in footbaths for Muslim men's religious needs - oh, you din't know about that? Where was the ACLU? Why not holy water founts as you board the planes?
Posted in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
I went to read the article and then read some of the comments and my thoughts ran the spectrum from how awful to good for them.
From the article they say that this ring isn't a necessary article of the Christian Faith, so it was disallowed under the uniform code. -- With that I agree. While it does promote a moral that I believe is a basic tenet if our Faith, and I will teach my children as well. The ring symbolizing that moral is NOT a necessary article. If not jewelry is allowed on a school uniform code ( ours at the school at which I teach has similar bans ) then it shouldn't be allowed.
However -- I disagree with the ruling that muslims should be allowed to wear their veils etc. Because they were. They aren't basic articles under their faith either -- they vary from sect to sect. That would be like me saying I should be allowed to wear my uniform as a soldier of The Salvation Army to my school because it is a necessary article to my Christian faith, when in fact that uniform merely an expression of my Faith and adherence to the doctrines of the particular sect of that Faith that I have chosen.
So which is it? If it is a uniform code, as they claim the Muslims shouldn't be allowed their veils etc either. But if they are only hiding behind the uniform code then it it Faith discrimination.
Posted by: Maria | July 17, 2007 10:55 PM
Maria, that is what I suspect. At this present time, liberals are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims in a way that will never extend to Christians. It's just not PC.
Neither are holy water fonts, Barbara, but, I think they would be a great idea!
Posted by: Leticia Velasquez | July 18, 2007 12:44 AM
Okay, color me confused here ...
A ring is not a necessity of the Christian Faith. I think that if the school has not allowed jewelry as part of the uniform, then the ring is not allowed. I'm sorry. I'm a Christian, and I don't need a ring to prove that. The Bible does not say we need to wear a ring. They are not denying her rights as a Christian, they are simply not allowing her (or any student) to wear jewelry. Although I think the ring symbolizes an admirable cause, I don't understand how the parents could pursue it this far. And I don't see how you Barbara, or anyone, can claim they denying Christian rights.
My only concern here, is why are bracelets allowed? What part of faith are they a requirement for?
Posted by: Brandie | July 18, 2007 2:08 AM
Brandie - that's my point: why are Muslim girls allowed to wear bracelets and Christians can't wear rings?
Posted by: barbara | July 18, 2007 8:50 AM
I don't understand. The claim is that the Muslim / Sikh girls ARE required by their religion to wear veils and bracelets. Haven't we heard stories of women in Muslim countries being killed for not wearing the proper apparel?
While I like the purity rings it seems to be that the school is not trying to ban Christian symbols, but simply limit exceptions to the uniform as much as possible, only allowing accessories that are required by a students religion and not those that are good, but optional.
Posted by: Michelle | July 18, 2007 11:47 AM
From what I understand, ISLAM, the religion, does not require that apparel (hijab). However, in certain countries Sharia law, based on the Koran, DOES require it. So, in those countries, it is required... by civil authorities.
It's not allowed in the public schools of Turkey though, interestingly enough!
Posted by: Milehimama | July 18, 2007 2:35 PM
Barbara,
It seems to me that they are not denying Christian rights but giving Muslims extra rights.
I can understand though why the head covering is allowed - my understanding is the Koran does not specifically say it must be worn but it is a requirement for some sects ... I look at it sort of like the Bible does not talk about a Pope, yet Catholics follow him, kwim? It's not in the Bible but it's accepted part of their beliefs.
I am still unsure of the bracelets ...
I still firmly believe that saying they are denying Christian rights is misleading and not accurate for what is happening in this particular situation.
Posted by: Brandie | July 18, 2007 5:54 PM
I think the entire point of the Christian faith is that it is based on a relationship and not religious practices or rituals. This ring is a trend and it has no value beyond the value or representation that this young lady has placed on it. Head coverings are a religious practice or a cultural expectation as in Sharia Law and are even referred to in scripture, purity rings are not.
On this one, I think the courts were right and unfortunately this is one of the arguments that gives Christians bad press.
~ Catherine
Posted by: Catherine | July 18, 2007 5:58 PM
