No ringing endorsement
Claude Mariottini picks up on a story from this side of the pond, of the girl who lost her fight to wear a chastity ring at school. He’s relying on the Times story, which seems a little light on detail. As a result he notes:
[Other] religious groups are allowed to wear, as the report said, headscarfs, religious bracelets, veils, garments, and other items that clearly express religious faith. However, the same privileges are denied to others just because they are Christians. To me, this is a double standard that must be addressed.
There is a fuller report in today’s Church Times, which suggests it is not quite like that:. It concludes:
In the past, the school had permitted a Muslim girl to wear a headscarf where it was considered by her to be a requirement of her faith. Two Sikh girls had been allowed to wear a “Kara” bangle on the same basis. A pupil was allowed to wear a headscarf, as it was believed that that form of dress was required as part of her faith as a member of the Plymouth Brethren.
By contrast, said the judge, there was no evidence that Lydia’s religious belief required her to wear the ring (and she did not suggest that it did), and the school offered her other means by which she could express her belief.
There was no evidence, the judge said, that Lydia had been unlawfully discriminated against, even though others had been treated as exceptions to the school rules. The school had reached carefully considered decisions on each occasion.
I don’t know if any American schools have “uniform policies” in the way that many English schools do. But as someone who in the past has been involved in agreeing them as a governor, I have a great deal of sympathy with this school. It sounds to me as though they had both a clear policy (to which the girl in question and her parents had signed up) and a careful response to exceptions.
They made those exceptions when the wearing of an item of clothing, or in one instance a bangle, were seen as requirements of the faith in question, and one of those exceptions was for the member of a Christian grouping. One of the reasons why, I suspect, Christians will normally be unable to lay claim to exceptions is that our faith places no such requirements of outer manifestations of belief on us.
I don’t disagree with Claude that there is sometimes a double standard (which I see primarily as a confused one) at play in these matters. I just don’t think this is an instance of it.
July 21st, 2007 at 12:07 am
I’m basically with you about this, but I feel like the policy is foolish in the first place. Why should a girl be barred from wearing that ring? Again, in the States, we typically don’t have these kind of issues to the extent and frequency as do Brits, but the whole thing is silly to my American mind. As a side-note, I just read Claude’s post about 15 minutes ago and I was wondering what the school would do about Sikhs carrying daggers (as required by faith.) Do you have any guesses?
July 24th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
And it continues: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5478
July 24th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
[...] to Justin Anthony Knapp for a comment on my previous post on the issue of Lydia Playfoot’s case against her school over being denied permission to wear [...]
July 25th, 2007 at 12:25 am
[...] who lost her court case claiming the right to wear a Christian chastity ring at school. See here, here and here for some Christian reaction; see also Lydia’s own [...]
August 5th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Doug,
Thank you for leaving on my blog the link to your blog on the issue of the chastity ring. Reading the information about the uniform policy made me rethink what I wrote. However, I agree Justin that this policy is foolish. As for the dagger that Justin mentioned, it seems to me that a dagger is not jewelry but I have to confess that I am not familiar with Sikh culture.
Claude Mariottini