Turbans, Hijabs... Ok... A ring... Absolutely not

[geoffrey]

Story here.

Quick summary... girl goes to a school that has a dress code and likes to wear some abstinence ring, just an ordinary ring.

School doesn't like it, forces her to not wear it if she is to attend.

At the same time, the school allows Turbans, Hijabs and gawdy steel bracelets.

Why the double standard? It seems like the Court said it wasn't a required religious peice so the school was right in barring her from wearing her ring. Neither is a hijab though, that's the choice of a Muslim woman, not a religious absolute.

The war against all things Christian, for the sake of it, continues.

Personally, I'm ok with banning of ridiculous displays of religion in public schools. Turbans, daggers, hijabs, crosses worn out of the shirt, carrying a cruxifix into the classroom... whatever. But wearing a ring is now banned because it's a Christian symbol (who would know if they didn't ask?).

It's a mess. The rule should apply to everyone equally. If the girl can't wear her "Christian" ring (whatever that choice has to do purely with Christianity, I'm unsure), then her classmates shouldn't carry weapons or wear headscarves.

[Riverwind]

But wearing a ring is now banned because it's a Christian symbol (who would know if they didn't ask?).

It was banned because it is a piece of jewelry that has no widely accepted religious significance. Hijabs may not have been proscribed by Mohammad but they are well established symbols of faith. A school dress code would be meanlingless if it allowed students to claim anything as a 'symbol of religion'.

[kimmy]

Does the school have a ban on other rings?

Suppose Lydia's friend also wants to wear a ring to school, but it's not an "abstinence ring", it's just an ornament for her finger. Does the school ban that girl's ring too? Or does the ban only apply to the "abstinence ring"?

I would say that unless the ban applies equally to all rings, then this strikes me as total BS.

If Lydia's ring has been singled out because it is an "expression of religious faith", then the court ruling that it's not a Christian symbol seems to contradict the school's logic.

Hypothetically, if a student at this school were engaged to marry, would her engagement ring be exempted from the policy?

-k

[Riverwind]

I would say that unless the ban applies equally to all rings, then this strikes me as total BS.

It applies to all jewerly - the only exception is jewellery which is an 'essential part' of a religion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2109204,00.html

Earlier this year, 13-year-old Catholic schoolgirl Samantha Devine was told not to wear a crucifix on a chain because it breached health and safety rules at the Robert Napier school, in Gillingham, Kent.

The school said the only exception it would make to its uniform rule would be if the jewellery was an essential part of a particular religion, which they did not feel was the case for the teenager.

Hypothetically, if a student at this school were engaged to marry, would her engagement ring be exempted from the policy?

I am guessing no.

I see this as a reasonable enforcement of a uniform policy. Now one could argue that the uniform policy itself is rediculous but that is a different argument.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Riverwind

[geoffrey]

Who is a school or a judge to decide what is of religious significance to someone? Last time I checked, faith was a personal matter. I find this a huge violation of personal freedom, especially since it's a minor thing... a little ring. If we were talking about a huge cross or something, ok, I can see the school's reasoning.

But this is just not a reasonable thing. You have huge symbolic things like hajibs and big steel rings on wrists, but a little ring is a no-no.

It's a poor judicial decision. When a judge looks at this, he has to weigh the invasion of freedom over it's effects on society. The affect of this ring on the school community likely is zero (I see no evidence to the contrary), so what justifies the removal of liberty?

[Riverwind]

Who is a school or a judge to decide what is of religious significance to someone?

Someone could claim that their Colt 44 has religious signficance to them or that wearing flip flops and a bikini is showing respect for the 'sun god'. Should the school simply take their word? It would defeat the purpose of the school uniform policy. If you think schools should not have a uniform policy then argue that point. The ring is clearly not a widely accepted christian symbol and is justifiably banned under the school's uniform policy. Edited July 18, 2007 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

Hypothetically, if a student at this school were engaged to marry, would her engagement ring be exempted from the policy?

I am guessing no.

I see this as a reasonable enforcement of a uniform policy. Now one could argue that the uniform policy itself is rediculous but that is a different argument.

And this is where I would have to tell the principal to go choke on a dick. Marriage is a deeply revered institution in our society, particularly to Christians, and an engagement ring is a universally recognized symbol of one's commitment to their partner. One can argue that an engagement ring is a religious symbol for the same reason as Muslim headscarfs.

If a student were told to remove her engagement ring of risk expulsion, I would hope she dares them to expel her and phones every newspaper in Britain the moment that they do. By the end of the resulting public furor, the principal and any other school board officials who tried to enforce such a decision would be lucky to have jobs.

For that matter, I doubt that their stance on this "abstinence ring" issue will be well-received by the public either. In fact, I expect that this will blow up in their faces much like the Festive Halal Chicken fiasco.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

And this is where I would have to tell the principal to go choke on a dick. Marriage is a deeply revered institution in our society, particularly to Christians, and an engagement ring is a universally recognized symbol of one's commitment to their partner. One can argue that an engagement ring is a religious symbol for the same reason as Muslim headscarfs.

Agreed, except for the dick choking. Many Christian religious orders (i.e. nuns) wear rings to demonstrate marriage to "God". Priests must remove marriage rings when ordained. There is probably no more universally recognized symbol except for the cross itself.

If a nun gets divorced, does she get half of the universe?

Edited July 18, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Riverwind]

an engagement ring is a universally recognized symbol of one's commitment to their partner.

Most often, an engagement ring is an ostentious display of wealth that has little or nothing to do with commitment and everything to do with showing off how rich one's husband to be is. It would be tough to convince anyone that engagement ring is viewed as a religious symbol today - no matter what its history. That said, they might accept it - we don't know.

We do know that an abstinence ring is not traditional religious symbol and belongs in the same category as someone claiming that a nose ring is a symbol of their devotion to the god of mall rats.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess we call it the "ring finger" for nothing? Or does that mean "onion rings".

Perhaps the student can protest with a piercing an "intimate" ring location undetectable by the school's staff. Add some tatoos for good measure.

[M.Dancer]

Say what you will but virginity is highly overrated....

[ScottSA]

I have no particular problem with this. If they have a "no jewelry" rule, then there should be no jewelry.

[sharkman]

Say what you will but virginity is highly overrated....

How would you know?

Perhaps I should point out that was an attempt at humour. Reading my post again just now it seems to be something else.

Edited July 20, 2007 by sharkman

[jefferiah]

Who is a school or a judge to decide what is of religious significance to someone?

Someone could claim that their Colt 44 has religious signficance to them or that wearing flip flops and a bikini is showing respect for the 'sun god'. Should the school simply take their word? It would defeat the purpose of the school uniform policy. If you think schools should not have a uniform policy then argue that point. The ring is clearly not a widely accepted christian symbol and is justifiably banned under the school's uniform policy.

And the relationship between an "abstinence" ring and a Colt 45 is?"

Perhaps there is a closer relationship between the Colt and the Kirpan.

[geoffrey]

Agreed. A Hajib is more obnoxious, but equally as religious insignificant IMO. Both the ring and the headscarf are essientially showing the same thing, modesty or chastity or whatever.

The difference is the ring is almost unnoticable, where as the headscarf is quite obvious.

If we want to ban all displays of religion, then do it. Otherwise let the girl have her freaking little ring.

That's my two cents.

[Riverwind]

If we want to ban all displays of religion, then do it. Otherwise let the girl have her freaking little ring.

Do you agree with a dress code that bans all jewelry? Do you think any ring should be allowed? If so then argue that point. Do not waste time claiming that this girl's ring deserves special treatment because she thinks it has religious significance for her. If you have a dress code that makes exceptions for religious symbols then it should only include well established and widely recognized symbols. Allowing people to make up what ever religious symbol they feel like defeats the purpose of having a dress code. Edited July 20, 2007 by Riverwind

[jefferiah]

If we want to ban all displays of religion, then do it. Otherwise let the girl have her freaking little ring.

Do you agree with a dress code that bans all jewelry? Do you think any ring should be allowed? If so then argue that point. Do not waste time claiming that this girl's ring deserves special treatment because she thinks it has religious significance for her. If you have a dress code that makes exceptions for religious symbols then it should only include well established and widely recognized symbols. Allowing people to make up what ever religious symbol they feel like defeats the purpose of having a dress code.

The dress code bans jewellery. So therefore it is not a thing about religion because they ban all rings? This is your argument. The thing is, that the dress code makes exceptions in cases of religion, so that it is ok for people of other faiths to wear Kirpans and the like in spite of the rule. And as for your Colt 45 argument which makes the point that people should be allowed to judge what is an acceptable religious symbol, I have to agree. People do have to make decisions about what is a reasonable claim of an important religious object for someone. Now how does an abstinence ring stack up next to the Colt. Isnt the Kirpan closer?

[jefferiah]

To explain it again for clarity.

When someone said "Who's right it is it to decide what is an important religious object for someone?"

You said "What if someone claims the Colt 45 is important?"

Everyone understand why this would be ridiculous. What possible problem could you have with the ring?

[Riverwind]

Now how does an abstinence ring stack up next to the Colt. Isnt the Kirpan closer?

Sikhs can correctly claim that wearing the Kirpan is a well established religious tradition that goes back centuries and they can provide lots of documentation to back that up. An abstinence ring is modern creation that has no symbolic connection with Christianity outside the mind of the wearer (i.e. non-Christians wear abstinence rings too). A dress code is meaningless if the only criteria used to justify exception is a connection in the mind of the wearer. For example, a devotee of the Church of Chuck Norris could claim that their religion requires them to carry a Colt 45 and the school would have to accept that argument because 'they have dont have a right to decide what is an important religious object to someone'. The same argument could be applied to any type of clothing. That is why the school DOES have a right to decide whether object is a legimate religious artificat. If you disagree the you should simply say that the school has no right to have any dress code. If you support the idea of a school dress code then you must support the right of the school to set arbitrary rules for what is allowed under that dress code.

IOW - the school's dress code is clear - exceptions are only allowed for well established and well known religious symbols. The abstinence ring clearly does not meet that criteria and is therefore does not qualify for that exception.

You could argue that the dress code should allow any simple unadorned ring. You cannot argue that the school should continue to ban 'simple unadorned rings' but allow abstinence rings because their alleged religious connection.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Riverwind

[jefferiah]

Well personally I dont think the school should ban jewellery at all. And I know what you are saying. But I would not have allowed Kirpans anyway, because they are closer to the Colt than the ring is? What possible harm could the ring do?

[M.Dancer]

What possible harm could the ring do?

Have you ever been married?

[jefferiah]

What possible harm could the ring do?

Have you ever been married?

Lol....no, you are pretty witty sometimes, M Dancer. That's good. Sometimes you are just the fellow to take the serious spin off the thread and get people out of a rut.

[Riverwind]

What possible harm could the ring do?

I suspect they are trying to keep the dress code as meaningful as possible. If they allow rings then how could they ban nose and tongue peircings which 'cause no harm'? A dress code is never about harm - it is about image. A complete ban on all jewelry is easier to enforce. The religious exemption is only allowed for a very narrow range of items which everyone already recognizes as a religious item. You can make a legimate safety argument to justify banning kirpans but I assume you accept that the kirpin is a legimate religious item.

[jefferiah]

Good point. I knew you were going to say that anyway. But I would think that since the abstinence ring had something to do with an established religious organization the school could easily make the distinction between it and someone who comes to school with a pierced nose and a fist full of diamonds and says "uhhh well...I am wearing this as part of my faith in the uhmmmm Puckerwitzer Faith. ....yes thats it, I am a devotee of Puckerwitzer." Now even at this you and I can still argue back and forth, about what makes the ring legit. So I won't bother, and I have to admit that this case could be a muddy example.