Rings and things
The High Court has ruled that a school in England by requiring that she remove her "purity ring" during class time. Lydia Playfoot is a member of the movement known as "", which encourages young people to refrain from sex until they are married.
Lawyers for the 16 year-old argued that her chastity ring was an expression of her Christian faith. The school argued that it was not an essential part of her faith, but rather a symbol of a lifestyle or personal choice, and they are simply honouring their uniform policy. Pupils at the school -- Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex -- are permitted to wear crosses or other essentially religious symbols.
I interviewed one of Lydia's sponsors a few weeks ago and it became clear that there are more issues at stake in this case than whether a pupil should be permitted to wear a ring in school time: behind the legal case there was the question of sex education in schools and what precisely young people should be taught.
Set aside the ethical issue for a moment and focus on this empirical question: do abstinence programmes actually work? The UK joins the US in having the highest rates of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections in the world, but does a programme like The Silver Ring Thing actually impact those figures -- or can it make matters worse?
Medical evidence is still being gathered, but found that young members of abstinence groups are one third less likely to use a condom when they do become sexually active than those who were not members. And research published in the British Medical Journal concludes that the partners of boys in abstinence programmes are more likely to become pregnant than than the partners of boys who are not members of those groups.
We should all be concerned about SDI rates among teens and about the UK's teen pregnancy rate, but are abstinence groups really the way to deal with those problems? Or should we put more resources into school-based sex education programmes?
Comments
Interesting point on the research. If that research is accurate I'd revise my support for the silver ring thing. It seemed like a good idea at first but not if its leading to worse problems in the longrun. I think you are right that this is what this court case is really about, behind the scenes.
There has been compelling evidence for quite some time now that abstinence pledges simply do not work in their ultimate goal of saving sex until marriage. What seems to be the case is that abstinence pledges will prolong virginity for a longer time; perhaps only months. That said, if they can do even some good, then they may be useful in preventing some teenage pregnancy and STD.
The key here for me is that, if abstinence programs are to be tried, they can NEVER be seen as a replacement for a full, comprehensive sex education. Some time ago, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote a piece titled "Christian Virgins Are Overrated." I happen to agree. There isn't any great virtue in virginity, though there are huge qualifications that must be made about that statement (regarding pregnancy, STDs, responsibility, the 'specialness' of sex and much more).
I'd certainly have no problem with a kid wearing a purity ring to school: it's the underlying theology that interests and, sometimes, concerns me.
At least a ring is slightly better than a chastity belt!
It is an interesting question for christians in todays world.Is the girl right to wear a ring to say " no sex please until I am married"I would think that a lot of people would agree with the statement but we are very good here about telling people espically young people what we think is wrong and very bad at telling them how to avoid the pit falls.I am all for more school-based sex education programmes but why stop at schools could it not be taught in Youth Groups in the Scouts,BB,Sea Scouts,Gfs etc.I say let her wear the ring but make sure she knows and understands fully why she is wearing it.
Following a Judicial Review in the High Court, brought by Lydia Playfoot (a pupil) against Millais School, West Sussex
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 of marriage. I believe that Mr. Justice Supperstone’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith.
Over two years ago, I was concerned at the number of teenagers who were catching sexually transmitted diseases, getting pregnant and/or having abortions.
The Government's Sex Education Programme is not working, and the pressure on young people to 'give in' to sex continues to increase. This is often because of the media’s focus on sex and the expectations of others.
As a Christian I do not agree with sex before marriage. I believe I have a right not only to state my Christian views on sex, but also to demonstrate my Christian faith and commitment to God and my future husband not to have sex before marriage, through the wearing of a purity ring.
I, along with 11 other Christian girls at Millais School decided before God that we would make a commitment not to have sex before marriage, and as a sign of that commitment, to wear a simple silver ring from the ‘Silver Ring Thing’ movement.
The wearing of the ring was to me, a demonstration of my Christian faith and values, which are based on the Bible – which clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong and therefore not God's best for us.
Despite the fact that Muslims girls at our school wear headscarves, and Sikhs wear Kara bangles, the school refused to allow me to manifest my belief through the wearing of a ring.
The School Governors originally said it was for Health and Safety reasons that purity rings were banned from school, but have offered no evidence to support the view that wearing a ring could physically harm another pupil or staff member.
I still believe the decision by the Governors of the School goes against the Article 9 rights to Freedom of Religion and my right to express my faith in word or deed, in a democratic, Christian-based country.
I shall be consulting my legal team to consider whether to appeal.
Finally I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parents, family and friends who have stood by me though all of this, and to the many hundreds of people, both locally in Horsham, across the UK and throughout the world who have sent me letters of support and assured me of their prayers.
I would also like to thank the national press and media for the balanced way in which they have covered this story, and have portrayed it for what it is; another example of the loss of the right of Christians to demonstrate their faith in public.
Lastly, but by no means least, I would like to thank my barrister, Mr Paul Diamond, and Mrs Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship for all their advice, guidance and support through what is a legal and political minefield for a 16-year-old schoolgirl to walk through. I would also like to thank Paul Eddy, of Paul Eddy PR who has guided me through the maze of working with the national press and media.
To everyone I offer my thanks, and I deeply regret that I could not persuade the Court to consider upholding the religious liberty of Christian people in the United Kingdom.
As a Christian though, I live for another Kingdom, and serve another King, Jesus Christ, and therefore I shall continue to live and speak for what is right and true.
Thank you.
Miss Lydia Playfoot
July 16, 2007
"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 of marriage."
Bearing in mind this girl left secondary education some time ago I fail to see what the point of this court action was let alone how she could be disappointed at being 'prevented from wearing her ring to school by the High Court decision'.
anon #5
interesting post but.....
What do you think?
I think she took the case for purely aggressive religious reasons and I support the courts decision.
I think there's clearly a double standard derived from the political correctness that pervades 'liberal' society these days. Telling a Muslim girl that she is forbidden from wearing some kind of religious symbol would never happen, but telling a Christian girl she can't wear her purity ring is considered fair game, since nobody's going to be accused of prejudice for doing so.
I'm not a fan of the Silver Ring Thing, but this is bloody prejudice.
The ring isn't a religious symbol, and it violated the schools dress code - that's why she was asked not to wear it. I don't think political correctness comes in to it at all.
There are enough myths surrounding political correctness already, we dont need any more.
Lydia writes "another example of the loss of the rights of christians to demonstrate their faith in public".
How long have christians been free to fill young heads with their beliefs in schools? It was going on when I was at school and now as the mother of three grown up boys I know it was going on when they were in school. And, as anyone who has ever tried to extricate their children from RE will know, it is impossible to stop the attempted indoctrination. Most schools in Northern Ireland claim to have a "christian ethos". It's also not so many years since everything, including children's parks, were closed on Sunday. So where does Lydia get the idea that christians are the most persecuted people ever?
dp says that the ring isn't a religious symbol. Let's break this down for you, dp. The girl is an adherent to a religion, she follows the precepts of that religion, one of those precepts is abstinence until marriage, her ring is part of that pledge, therefore she wears the ring as a symbol of her religion; it's a religious symbol. Are you saying that just because it's a 'modern-day' or a fairly 'new' Christian symbol it's therefore not a Christian symbol? The school allows crosses. Just how long does a symbol have to be in existence before it becomes 'religious'?
You say you don't want to bring political correctness into this, but you don't offer an explanation as to why Muslim girls are allowed to wear anything connected with the Muslim religion while Christian girls' religious symbols are fair game. If that isn't the very definition of political correctness, tell me what is.
I had held out hope that I'd be able to agree with you on something, someday, dp - that hope is fading fast.
My main point is that the political correctness thing is a bit of a red herring and it's very tiresome having it rolled out as an explanation for every decision made.
I’m sorry but I just don’t buy the typical Daily Mail reader attitude of "You know who’s really being discriminated against in this society - white middle class heterosexuals"
Accusing someone of political correctness is just a cheap way of trying to discredit their ideas and elevate the position of the accuser.
I'd say the ring would have to be a bit more widely recognised before it could be accepted as a religious symbol.
Personally, I couldn't care less what people wear - she could come to school in a medieval chastity belt if she wants, but at the end of the day – it’s the schools decision and if you want to be part of that school you play by their rules. It was a blatant attempt at getting some publicity. If she’s following the precepts of her religion – I hope she isn’t wearing clothes made of 2 different materials :)
This whole story looks like an advertising stunt. From an advertising point of view its a clever ploy and I've no doubt sales of these abstinence programs in the UK will have soared.