That chastity ring thing again
Thanks 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 her silver chastity ring. He provides a link that shows that all was indeed not entirely as reported at the time. Most specifically:
It was later revealed that the girl’s parents had been directly involved in the UK branch of Silver Ring Thing. Heather Playfoot, her mother, has been the company secretary of Silver Ring Thing (UK) Ltd.
Lydia’s father, an elder of the Kings Church in Horsham, Philip Playfoot, has been the company’s Parents’ Programme Director.
Seems to me that the scriptures have at least as much to say about honesty as they do about chastity.
Update: Peter Kirk’s comment (see below) on this post suggests that the honesty question is more a question about poor reporting than about the couple’s non-disclosure. I’m also only going on what was reported, and have no idea when this information about the Playfoot family having a much stronger investment in their daughter’s stance became public knowledge, and whether it was willingly disclosed in early arguments with the school, or only emerged as part of the legal process. I still stand by the view of my earlier post that the court judgement was quite reasonable, and not, as some have sought to portray it, discrimination against Christians, whatever the precise timing of emerging facts.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Maybe we could buy her a WWJD? bracelet instead…
July 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Doug, you should look at yourself for dishonesty first, or perhaps for believing other people’s misleading claims. The claim “It was later revealed” is untrue if taken to mean that this not known at the time of the court case (is that what you mean by “at the time”?) or that there was any dishonesty involved, for this was publicly known before the case came to court. It was clearly stated in a BBC article from 22nd June that:
So where is the dishonesty except in the Ekklesia report, or in your interpretation of it?
The directors are listed by name on the SRT website. I know I can’t prove that this page is not new, but the names of the directors of a company must be publicly available.
This page also says:
Also here:
I know you have not alleged a financial interest here, but others have, and this is intended to refute any such suggestion.
I have no links with SRT and know nothing more about this issue than I have seen in the media and on the Internet.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:25 am
[...] been waged against Lydia and her family in the aftermath of this case. They have been accused of dishonesty and of being in this for the money. Even the supposedly respectable think tank Ekklesia implies [...]
July 25th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Doug, thanks for the update. I am now happy with your position, and will amend my post appropriately. I don’t know exactly who knew what when, but I’m sure the school would have been aware early on that Lydia’s parents and her church were promoting the ring.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Peter, I’ve left a comment on your amended post replying there to the points you make. I suspect we each think the other has over-reacted to this.