NationStates Jolt Archive

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.

I feel that either everyone should be required to dump their religious stuff at the door (and this includes the headscarf), or everyone should be allowed to wear their religious stuff.

Although I don't agree with the idea of abstinence as a policy for everyone, if it's something the parents agree with, I have no idea why the school came down so hard - only on those children.

It's a lifestyle choice - and if we're not going to have criticism of lifestyles allowed, the school needs to STFU.

You're absolutely right, it's completely hypocritical. It's things like this that make fundamentalist Christians convinced that the Left hates them above all other religions and fully intends to destroy them. If things like this keep happening I'm going to agree with them. Of course, I am not that surprised. In America public school graduation speeches, any mention of the Christian God is forbidden, but call Stalin your savior and it'll be okay.

Because apparently it's allright to express you religionas much as you want in school if your a muslim because it is not politically correct if you decide to stop letting them. However, christianity does not fit in to the notion of politcal correctness and therefor you are to treat them how you like.

Dir.... It's the system!

They're not being hypocritical. This has nothing to do with the religious associations of the rings.


While the school's uniform rules forbid jewellery, they argue that the rings - given to teenagers who complete a controversial evangelical church course preaching sexual abstinence - hold genuine religious significance.


Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.

They're not being hypocritical. This has nothing to do with the religious associations of the rings.



Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.

Like this:

There are Muslim girls in the school who are allowed to wear the headcovering, although that isn't part of the school uniform, and Sikh girls who are allowed the wear the bangle although that isn't part of the uniform. It's a discriminatory policy.

They're not being hypocritical. This has nothing to do with the religious associations of the rings.



Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.

In my school, you cant wear these rings, but muslim girls can come in full irham (thats the word, right? the robes and everything) clothing

They're not being hypocritical. This has nothing to do with the religious associations of the rings.



Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.
...schools disallow wearing jewellery? Since when? No school I've EVER seen--and I've been to my fair share--has ever disallowed jewellery. Frankly, I think that's a pretty idiotic practice.

That said, if they see under such a regulation, then they are completely in the right in not allowing the rings to be worn.

What about necklaces with crosses on them?

...schools disallow wearing jewellery? Since when? No school I've EVER seen--and I've been to my fair share--has ever disallowed jewellery. Frankly, I think that's a pretty idiotic practice.

That said, if they see under such a regulation, then they are completely in the right in not allowing the rings to be worn.

The point was, that they allow muslims to wear religious symbolism which is against the dress code, but not christians.

...schools disallow wearing jewellery? Since when? No school I've EVER seen--and I've been to my fair share--has ever disallowed jewellery. Frankly, I think that's a pretty idiotic practice.

That said, if they see under such a regulation, then they are completely in the right in not allowing the rings to be worn.
Eh, I went to a strict Catholic school. They didn't permit wearing any jewellery.

The point was, that they allow muslims to wear religious symbolism which is against the dress code, but not christians.

Symbols that are not jewellry. You can't wear jewellry in schools, full stop. It isn't anti-Christian. It's anti-jewellry if anything.

They're not being hypocritical. This has nothing to do with the religious associations of the rings.

Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.Altering the school uniform is ok, as long as precious Metallic Jewellery isn't a part of it?

isn't that kinda like the boy who was refused into his Prom because he wore a dress?

The point was, that they allow muslims to wear religious symbolism which is against the dress code, but not christians.
Hmm...

Okay, so if that's true, then let them wear the rings. If that's true, they're not endorsing any religion, but allowing those of religious faiths to have their religious...stuff. Me, I don't care, so long as no one religion is being endorsed by the school.

Symbols that are not jewellry. You can't wear jewellry in schools, full stop. It isn't anti-Christian. It's anti-jewellry if anything.

Nor can you wear anything against the dress code. Thats why it's called the dress code.

Altering the school uniform is ok, as long as precious Metallic Jewellery isn't a part of it?

isn't that kinda like the boy who was refused into his Prom because he wore a dress?
The reasoning for banning jewellery is generally that it may be stolen, and that the school's insurance will not cover it. So yes, as long as it doesn't contain precious metals, I guess it's okay.

Symbols that are not jewellry. You can't wear jewellry in schools, full stop. It isn't anti-Christian. It's anti-jewellry if anything.
That's pretty stupid IMHO.

isn't that kinda like the boy who was refused into his Prom because he wore a dress?

God damnit, I really wish I was born 50 years earlier.

Altering the school uniform is ok, as long as precious Metallic Jewellery isn't a part of it?

isn't that kinda like the boy who was refused into his Prom because he wore a dress?

Eh. It's a stupid rule. However, it isn't an anti-Christian rule. It discriminates against anyone wearing jewellry.

You're absolutely right, it's completely hypocritical. It's things like this that make fundamentalist Christians convinced that the Left hates them above all other religions and fully intends to destroy them. If things like this keep happening I'm going to agree with them. Of course, I am not that surprised. In America public school graduation speeches, any mention of the Christian God is forbidden, but call Stalin your savior and it'll be okay.

Whoa.

Somebody forgot their meds today.

That's pretty stupid IMHO.

Yeah, but thats school systems for you.

The reasoning for banning jewellery is generally that it may be stolen, and that the school's insurance will not cover it. So yes, as long as it doesn't contain precious metals, I guess it's okay.
usually, the school is not held responsible for items stolen unless the faculty did the stealing. then the school usually allows prosecution while the school fires that faculty member.

Eh. It's a stupid rule. However, it isn't an anti-Christian rule. It discriminates against anyone wearing jewellry.
my point is why enforce the no Jewellery rule and not the entire school uniform rule.

usually, the school is not held responsible for items stolen unless the faculty did the stealing. then the school usually allows prosecution while the school fires that faculty member.
That's not how it works here. :)

my point is why enforce the no Jewellery rule and not the entire school uniform rule.

There actually aren't, in my experience, many schools that do the uniform exceptions thing. As usual it's the Daily Mail working itself into another rant.

Yeah, but thats school systems for you.

Yes but the thing is, not allowing rings is part of the dress code. Wearing rings is violating the dress code which is not allowed. However, muslims can violate the dress code to show their religious symbolism, christians can not violate the dress code to show their religious symbolism.

Yes but the thing is, not allowing rings is part of the dress code. Wearing rings is violating the dress code which is not allowed. However, muslims can violate the dress code to show their religious symbolism, christians can not violate the dress code to show their religious symbolism.

No, no-one can wear the rings. Not just Christians.

That's not how it works here. :)
then I weep for your school system if they have to take all responsiblity for anything that goes wrong there.

It is blatantly discriminatory:

http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublications/thesikhbangle/

No, no-one can wear the rings. Not just Christians.

But Sikh's can wear the bangles, which are jewelry.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.

I feel that either everyone should be required to dump their religious stuff at the door (and this includes the headscarf), or everyone should be allowed to wear their religious stuff.

Although I don't agree with the idea of abstinence as a policy for everyone, if it's something the parents agree with, I have no idea why the school came down so hard - only on those children.

It's a lifestyle choice - and if we're not going to have criticism of lifestyles allowed, the school needs to STFU.

It's a British school and they do things different.

They tend to frown on Jewlery so it's more about that then oppressing you poor wittle christians.

Even with the rulings on Muslims and Sikhs. I don't mind them because they don't bother anybody.

Christians on the other hand? Many of them just can't STFU about their Religion.

I can't count how many times I have been asked "Have you found God yet?" Can't you people find him on your own?

*mumbles*

There actually aren't, in my experience, many schools that do the uniform exceptions thing. As usual it's the Daily Mail working itself into another rant.

So, the Daily Mail made up the students and parents in question?

It's a British school and they do things different.

They tend to frown on Jewlery so it's more about that then oppressing you poor wittle christians.

Even with the rulings on Muslims and Sikhs. I don't mind them because they don't bother anybody.

Christians on the other hand? Many of them just can't STFU about their Religion.

I can't count how many times I have been asked "Have you found God yet?" Can't you people find him on your own?

*mumbles*


So you admit it's discriminatory? Or is that just you?

No, no-one can wear the rings. Not just Christians.

It all falls under the same catagory, no-one can violate the dress code. Except muslims.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.

Have they been banned from wearing crucifixes? No. They've been banned from wearing ugly rings that are part of a USian attention-whorish fad, not any sort of expression of religion. The school is right in banning them. These people tried to import this particular brand of stupid and claim that it's "religious" - nobody's buying that it is.

It all falls under the same catagory, no-one can violate the dress code. Except muslims.

And Sikh's.

It's a British school and they do things different.

They tend to frown on Jewlery so it's more about that then oppressing you poor wittle christians.

Even with the rulings on Muslims and Sikhs. I don't mind them because they don't bother anybody.

Christians on the other hand? Many of them just can't STFU about their Religion.

I can't count how many times I have been asked "Have you found God yet?" Can't you people find him on your own?

*mumbles*so you agree then that this was just targetting Christians.

Have they been banned from wearing crucifixes? No. They've been banned from wearing ugly rings that are part of a USian attention-whorish fad, not any sort of expression of religion. The school is right in banning them. These people tried to import this particular brand of stupid and claim that it's "religious" - nobody's buying that it is.

They can wear crucifixes? Wouldn't that be considered jewelry?

Edit: Leave it to Fass to turn this into an anti-american thread.

so you agree then that this was just targetting Christians.

No. I think it's more about Jewelery in general.

But I will defer to the people that live there and have more info about the situation.

*Shakes Head*

The 'real' reason the braclets are not being allowed is because it condradicts school policy on sex education. They are just using the 'no jewlery' clause of the dress code as the enforcement mechanism.

The other 'religious' symbology is not in conflict with the approved, government sponsered ciriculum and therefore has no reason to be inforced.

Education can not be allowed in the hands of puritanical, conservative individuals. How are we going to effectively promote a progressive, liberal society with their constant interference? Our scientifically proven teaching methods will allow us to derive the most effective employment opportunites for teachers for generations.

Have they been banned from wearing crucifixes? No. They've been banned from wearing ugly rings that are part of a USian attention-whorish fad, not any sort of expression of religion. The school is right in banning them. These people tried to import this particular brand of stupid and claim that it's "religious" - nobody's buying that it is.

Even if it was completely and utterly religious symbolism, nothing else, they would ban it anyway.

No. I think it's more about Jewelery in general.

But I will defer to the people that live there and have more info about the situation.
true, since I don't know much about the educational system there. but I do wonder why the rings were taken away and not the Bangles.

this is crazy, a school has not right in telling a girl that she can't wear a ring especialy when that ring is religeously significant.
i wear a purity ring, i didnt get my from my church i made the choice on my own, but if some one told me that i could not wear it i would flip.

T
Edit: Leave it to Fass to turn this into an anti-american thread.

Well it is an American that started this thread......

They can wear crucifixes? Wouldn't that be considered jewelry?

Apparently not, as the bangle is allowed. It doesn't seem like they ban things with religious significance - they've just banned a foreign fad that has nothing to do with religion. That these people are claiming it religious, when it's clearly not at all about religion and instead an attempt at a vapid US-influenced sexual-political statement, doesn't mean the school has to buy their BS.

Education can not be allowed in the hands of puritanical, conservative individuals. How are we going to effectively promote a progressive, liberal society with their constant interference? Our scientifically proven teaching methods will allow us to derive the most effective employment opportunites for teachers for generations.

buuuuuuuulllllllshittt

I've had far better effect on my childrens' education than any school they've ever attended. Scientifically proven teaching methods my swollen anus.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.
This kind of shit wouldn't go down in the good old Republique de France.

In America public school graduation speeches, any mention of the Christian God is forbidden, but call Stalin your savior and it'll be okay.
Has the latter ever been tried, in fairness?

Symbols that are not jewellry. You can't wear jewellry in schools, full stop. It isn't anti-Christian. It's anti-jewellry if anything.

Those bastards!

*Shakes Head*

The 'real' reason the braclets are not being allowed is because it condradicts school policy on sex education. They are just using the 'no jewlery' clause of the dress code as the enforcement mechanism.

The other 'religious' symbology is not in conflict with the approved, government sponsered ciriculum and therefore has no reason to be inforced.

Education can not be allowed in the hands of puritanical, conservative individuals. How are we going to effectively promote a progressive, liberal society with their constant interference? Our scientifically proven teaching methods will allow us to derive the most effective employment opportunites for teachers for generations.
but by using the No Jewlery clause, they have to now enforce it across the board (including the Sikh bangles which are also Jewlery ) otherwise they come out being discriminatory and adding fuel to a religous fire.

Have they been banned from wearing crucifixes? No. They've been banned from wearing ugly rings that are part of a USian attention-whorish fad, not any sort of expression of religion. The school is right in banning them. These people tried to import this particular brand of stupid and claim that it's "religious" - nobody's buying that it is.

Oh so now school boards have a right to decide which religions are appropriate or not? "Don't really like your religion, you are forbidden to wear anything that references to it".

Now that, doesn't sound like discrimination at all.

Apparently not, as the bangle is allowed. It doesn't seem like they ban things with religious significance - they've just banned a foreign fad that has nothing to do with religion. That these people are claiming it religious, when it's clearly not at all about religion and instead an attempt at a vapid US-influenced sexual-political statement, doesn't mean the school has to buy their BS.

Oh, please Fass. Get off your anti-US high horse for a little while and realize that this has nothing to do w/ it. Just because you don't recognize something that has to do w/ a religious belief doesn't invalidate it.

It's blatant PC gone mad.

Well it is an American that started this thread......
but the focus is on another country.

however, it seems that there are some that cannot help but tie America into every thread.... it's almost like an obession... dare I say it... a secret admiration perhaps. :p

Oh so now school boards have a right to decide which religions are appropriate or not? "Don't really like your religion, you are forbidden to wear anything that references to it".

Now that, doesn't sound like discrimination at all.

The school board does indeed get to go: "We aren't stupid. This isn't about religion. Go try and fool some other idiots into thinking that it is."

So, the Daily Mail made up the students and parents in question?

Yes.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

The school board does indeed get to go: "We aren't stupid. This isn't about religion. Go try and fool some other idiots into thinking that it is."

By the way Fass, this is in England, not America, so it's not really to do with a US fad.

true, since I don't know much about the educational system there. but I do wonder why the rings were taken away and not the Bangles.

Well? After giving it a minute thought ;)

If I had to guess, I would say the Muslims and Sikhs have been wearing their things for a very long time.

The silver ring thing is a recent import from the US.

The school board does indeed get to go: "We aren't stupid. This isn't about religion. Go try and fool some other idiots into thinking that it is."

The same thing could be said about any profitable religious organization, that they are only making up crap to fill their pockets with money.

Oh, please Fass. Get off your anti-US high horse for a little while and realize that this has nothing to do w/ it. Just because you don't recognize something that has to do w/ a religious belief doesn't invalidate it.

It's blatant PC gone mad.

These rings have nothing to do with religion. If they wanted to say "Look, I'm a Christian" they would have worn a crucifix, or some other common Christian attire that is about religion. No, they wanted to go "look at my imported sexual-political statement that I'm trying to use religion as an excuse for so that rules don't apply to me!"

By the way Fass, this is in England, not America, so it's not really to do with a US fad.

No, it is an America fad, this jewelrry.

Do we have pics of this virgin ring?

Have they been banned from wearing crucifixes? No. They've been banned from wearing ugly rings that are part of a USian attention-whorish fad, not any sort of expression of religion. The school is right in banning them. These people tried to import this particular brand of stupid and claim that it's "religious" - nobody's buying that it is.
I was just thinking that. Unlike crucifixes, faux-silver rings are not a traditional Christian symbol.

The 'real' reason the braclets are not being allowed is because it condradicts school policy on sex education. They are just using the 'no jewlery' clause of the dress code as the enforcement mechanism.

The other 'religious' symbology is not in conflict with the approved, government sponsered ciriculum and therefore has no reason to be inforced.

You don't think that the Muslim cover-alls conflict with progressive sex education?

No, it is an America fad, this jewelrry.

So that must make it illegitimate. Anything from the US is bad and shouldn't be allowed.

By the way Fass, this is in England, not America, so it's not really to do with a US fad.

Actually it is. The Silver Ring Concept is one of our lovely exports.

By the way Fass, this is in England, not America, so it's not really to do with a US fad.

The fad is directly imported from the US, and had you read the OP, you would have seen that: "Her ring came from the Silver Ring Thing, an evangelical initiative recently introduced to Britain from the US" and "courses organised by the Silver Ring Thing, created a decade ago by two Christian activists in Arizona."

It's just US neo-cons trying to export failed "abstinence" sexual politics.

Actually it is. The Silver Ring Concept is one of our lovely exports.


Are people in the US wearing them? I've never heard of/seen one.

These rings have nothing to do with religion. If they wanted to say "Look, I'm a Christian" they would have worn a crucifix, or some other common Christian attire that is about religion. No, they wanted to go "look at my imported sexual-political statement that I'm trying to use religion as an excuse for so that rules don't apply to me!"

You don't recognize it has anything to do w/ religion. Admit it Fass, the only reason you're argueing this is because you want to crap on the US some more.

Both the Sikh bangles and comb are representative of something, just as these rings are to the ones who believe it.

Well? After giving it a minute thought ;)

If I had to guess, I would say the Muslims and Sikhs have been wearing their things for a very long time.

The silver ring thing is a recent import from the US.I would rather say that the administrators stumbled upon a hot topic and now they need to tread very carefully.

Are people in the US wearing them? I've never heard of/seen one.

I've seem them before. They've been around for awhile.

I've seem them before. They've been around for awhile.


Really? Well,Apparently I dont hang out with many Christians then ay? Dont I feel dumb?


*not*

I just can't see how, in this case, it is nothing more then Religious.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.

I feel that either everyone should be required to dump their religious stuff at the door (and this includes the headscarf), or everyone should be allowed to wear their religious stuff.

Although I don't agree with the idea of abstinence as a policy for everyone, if it's something the parents agree with, I have no idea why the school came down so hard - only on those children.

It's a lifestyle choice - and if we're not going to have criticism of lifestyles allowed, the school needs to STFU.

All the more reason to keep the government out of education. There is nothing that the government can screw up as much as educating a bunch of impressionable kids. Well, maybe there is -- I know pig shit is slippery, but don't tell me about it.

By the way, do the Sikhs get to keep their knives? What a conundrum for weapon-phobic Britain.

If you guys think this is bad try being a wiccan with lesbain/gay friends in an American high school. Gays and lesbians get in deep shit for wearing any sort of pride jewlery to school and I (as a wiccan) have to be "spoken to" everytime I wear my pent to school.

Yet there are christians who walk around with GIANT CROSSES that must weigh a good two pounds, crusifixes and walk around with the bible and do they get in trouble? No.


And suddenly YOU ALL are screaming discimination?! Over a RING?! That isn't even a treditional religious SYMBOL?! Oh for the love of the Goddess...

You don't recognize it has anything to do w/ religion.

Because it doesn't. Had this been about religion, they would have worn an actual Christian symbol - not what some yokels from Arizona invented to push a failed abstinence-only view of sex.

Admit it Fass, the only reason you're argueing this is because you want to crap on the US some more.

Admit it - you can clearly see this has nothing to do with religion, but think that by going "oh, Fass, you mean persecutor of the US, you" you're gonna be able to mask the nature of this fad, which is basically no different than those silly issue magnets people in the US like to attach to their cars.

Both the Sikh bangles and comb are representative of something, just as these rings are to the ones who believe it.

The bangle and comb have been used by Sikhs for a very long time. This is a fad invented by two nutjobs from Arizona.

If you guys think this is bad try being a wiccan with lesbain/gay friends in an American high school. Gays and lesbians get in deep shit for wearing any sort of pride jewlery to school and I (as a wiccan) have to be "spoken to" everytime I wear my pent to school.

Yet there are christians who walk around with GIANT CROSSES that must weigh a good two pounds, crusifixes and walk around with the bible and do they get in trouble? No.


And suddenly YOU ALL are screaming discimination?! Over a RING?! That isn't even a treditional religious SYMBOL?! Oh for the love of the Goddess...

Now who would "you all" be? Just because some schools in the US pull the same crap means that the reverse should be acceptable?

Are people in the US wearing them? I've never heard of/seen one.

It was created in 1996.

http://www.silverringthing.com/about.html

It's hogwash. A ring doesn't keep people from cheating on each other so why would a ring keep kids from having sex. It's personal conviction. A couple of my friends did that. I would have bet money they couldn't; but they did. Especially the one girl I was after. She was 1/2 Peruvian. Stunning creature!

Ahh well.....

Because it doesn't. Had this been about religion, they would have worn an actual Christian symbol - not what some yokels from Arizona invented to push a failed abstinence-only view of sex.



Admit it - you can clearly see this has nothing to do with religion, but think that by going "oh, Fass, you mean persecutor of the US, you" you're gonna be able to mask the nature of this fad, which is basically no different than those silly issue magnets people in the US like to attach to their cars.



The bangle and comb have been used by Sikhs for a very long time. This is a fad invented by two nutjobs from Arizona.

*gives Fass a giant cookie and hug* thank you new favorite person!

All the more reason to keep the government out of education. There is nothing that the government can screw up as much as educating a bunch of impressionable kids. Well, maybe there is -- I know pig shit is slippery, but don't tell me about it.

Government involvement is good. It keeps Religious indoctrination away from impressionable kids.

Because it doesn't. Had this been about religion, they would have worn an actual Christian symbol - not what some yokels from Arizona invented to push a failed abstinence-only view of sex.



Admit it - you can clearly see this has nothing to do with religion, but think that by going "oh, Fass, you mean persecutor of the US, you" you're gonna be able to mask the nature of this fad, which is basically no different than those silly issue magnets people in the US like to attach to their cars.



The bangle and comb have been used by Sikhs for a very long time. This is a fad invented by two nutjobs from Arizona.


Nice job w/ the personal attacks. "Yokels", "Silly", "nutjobs". Seems that's all you've got in this one.

I take it that that would be an admission that this is just a blatant attack on certain elements due to PC'ism.

Now who would "you all" be? Just because some schools in the US pull the same crap means that the reverse should be acceptable?

I am trying to point out that apparently it is ok to yell at the 'unacceptable lifestyles' for being different and showing pride in thier life choices. But as soon as someone goes after the majority for the same thing it becomes wrong. Not before.

Has anyone gone on and complained when other non-christians are forced to remove religious/sexual oriantation jewlery because it offends christians? No. But as soon as christians are asked to remove something that is not a treditional representation of their faith in accordance with school dress code the christian community goes up in arms claiming discrimination. As if it only happens to them.

It seems they even let sexually active kids "start over" with the ring.

Q. What about kids who are already sexually active?
A. We address this question in the Second Virginity message which speaks directly to the issues and problems that sexually active students have encountered. We recognize the fact that many students who attend the SRT are, or have been, sexually active and they need to know if it is possible to begin again. The answer is YES YOU CAN START OVER and, in fact, for this reason many students attend our program.


I found a site and it sounds more like a Marketing frenzy and an attempt to make a profit under the guise of "concern for our youths salvation". A little bit gimmicky for me.

Government involvement is good. It keeps Religious indoctrination away from impressionable kids.
I agree. It's disgraceful the number of girls you see wearing burquas.

It seems they even let sexually active kids "start over" with the ring.



I found a site and it sounds more like a Marketing frenzy and an attempt to make a profit under the guise of "concern for our youths salvation". A little bit gimmicky for me.

Who cares if its gimmicky? It wasn't banned because it was gimmicky besides lots of gimmicky things are allowed in public schools.

Nice job w/ the personal attacks. "Yokels", "Silly", "nutjobs". Seems that's all you've got in this one.

I take it that that would be an admission that this is just a blatant attack on certain elements due to PC'ism.

Why? They describe my relatives who are VERY Christian.

Besides, Arizona has to pay for their sin. It was two lawyers in Arizona that introduced the world to SPAM. It must pay heavily for that crime! :p

I agree. It's disgraceful the number of girls you see wearing burquas.

Even more so the number of boys seen wearing crosses.

Nice job w/ the personal attacks. "Yokels", "Silly", "nutjobs". Seems that's all you've got in this one.

I take it that that would be an admission that this is just a blatant attack on certain elements due to PC'ism.

"Waah, you mean old persecutor of the US! Waah!"

Face it - nobody's buying that these are any more religious than a made in China "support the troops!" yellow ribbon magnet. (http://www.bulkfoods.com/images/yellowribbon2.jpg) These rings are nothing but feeble attempts at a political statement, and have nothing to do with religion. If the school had banned crucifixes, but allowed bangles, then you would have had a point. Now, you would only have a point if the school banned these but allowed some Indian equivalent of a political statement for lazy fad followers who crave a cheap gimmick.

Can I get one of these rings... I'd like to be a born again virgin.

Can I get one of these rings... I'd like to be a born again virgin.


Wouldn't the ring melt if you put it on?

All the more reason to keep the government out of education. There is nothing that the government can screw up as much as educating a bunch of impressionable kids. Well, maybe there is -- I know pig shit is slippery, but don't tell me about it.


Government, and especially big government, does an exceptional job educating kids, look at places like finland.

Since when was a ring a symbol of Christianity? Since when were we commanded by the Bible to wear one?

I must have missed out on that particular rule.

Wouldn't the ring melt if you put it on?

either that or my head would a splode

Since when was a ring a symbol of Christianity? Since when were we commanded by the Bible to wear one?

I must have missed out on that particular rule.


*stares at little pent ring* apparently everyone did...

What if I wore my chai necklace into that school?

It's religious jewelry, though it is not Christian - it's Jewish. And it has a ton of significance to me. I have worn that necklace continually for several years.

The argument that 'it might be stolen' makes no sense in my case. It is often not visible, and the chain is too short to fit over my head. If someone tried to take it off by force, I would probably go into a religious frenzy and rip their throat out. And unless they had a reason that made sense to me, I would not take it off willingly.

Nor can you wear anything against the dress code. Thats why it's called the dress code.

how many dress codes say "no headscarves"?

how many dress codes say "no headscarves"?


Vive la France

how many dress codes say "no headscarves"?

About as many say "no pentacles" a.k.a none.

Vive la France

Dieu la bénisse! :D

C'est La Vie.

Have they been banned from wearing crucifixes? No. They've been banned from wearing ugly rings that are part of a USian attention-whorish fad, not any sort of expression of religion. The school is right in banning them. These people tried to import this particular brand of stupid and claim that it's "religious" - nobody's buying that it is.

Holy crap, thank you! I cannot believe it took until the third page for someone to point this out.

Not only should this have been the first, obvious comment to the OP, it should, in a perfect world, have kept the OP from making the thread in the first place.

These rings are *not* crucifixes. They are merely a symbol of something that happens to be based in a Christian "movement" of some sort.
Well, just because my neighborhood priest thinks it'd be awesome if his congregation all wore a heart-shaped earring to show that they're members of his "Supreme love of Jesus" Sunday school class, doesn't mean that would somehow make my earring more important than any other jewelry that is being banned.

Please people, think.

Some of us tried to think but Fass got there first.

Some of us tried to think but Fass got there first. Eh, nevermind me. It's not like I was so very quick, here on page 7...

Eh, nevermind me. It's not like I was so very quick, here on page 7...

Eh Fass would have beat us both if we had been on page one.

They're not being hypocritical. This has nothing to do with the religious associations of the rings.

Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.
So how do you justfiy Muslim girls wearing headscarves and the Sikh girls wearing their "bangles" ( whatever those are )? Those are both against the dress code as well as being religious symbols.

By the way, do the Sikhs get to keep their knives? What a conundrum for weapon-phobic Britain.

We're not weapon phobic... we just have this thing about people dying - we're not fans... and aren't the Sikh knives generally blunt? I think they are allowed but usually secured in the sheath, blunted and out of the way, so no threat to health and safety.

So how do you justfiy Muslim girls wearing headscarves and the Sikh girls wearing their "bangles" ( whatever those are )? Those are both against the dress code as well as being religious symbols.


Since the school allows crucifix necklaces, they are certainly obliged to allow other religious icons and constumes.

These rings arent bona fide religious costume, however. They are a silly fad.

Government, and especially big government, does an exceptional job educating kids, look at places like finland.
Only if you believe that the government knows best. Otherwise, it does a lousy job. Schools in the United States are one social experiment after another. The result is a very secular setting, where nearly no learning takes place.

Only if you believe that the government knows best. Otherwise, it does a lousy job. Schools in the United States are one social experiment after another. The result is a very secular setting, where nearly no learning takes place.

Hmmm.

Two schools I went to were secular and we did are learnan jus fine!

So how do you justfiy Muslim girls wearing headscarves and the Sikh girls wearing their "bangles" ( whatever those are )? Those are both against the dress code as well as being religious symbols.

Bangles are generally discreet jewelery, usually it's only one and usually under the shirt part of the uniform... unless it's one of those special topless schools... and WHERE in the dress code does it say "headscarves are not allowed"? I have seen many where it says "caps are not allowed" and "jewelery (inc. rings & earrings) are not allowed" (I've also noticed that those which ban jewelery allow necklaces, except in PE, so why not other discreet jewelery like bangles?)

Bangles are generally discreet jewelery, usually it's only one and usually under the shirt part of the uniform... unless it's one of those special topless schools... and WHERE in the dress code does it say "headscarves are not allowed"? I have seen many where it says "caps are not allowed" and "jewelery (inc. rings & earrings) are not allowed" (I've also noticed that those which ban jewelery allow necklaces, except in PE, so why not other discreet jewelery like bangles?)
Read the article. Then we'll talk.

Only if you believe that the government knows best. Otherwise, it does a lousy job. Schools in the United States are one social experiment after another. The result is a very secular setting, where nearly no learning takes place.


No, thats wrong.

Should be "Only if you believe that kids who know more and are better at math and problem solving are better-educated."


Obviously the best practice would be to learn from what countries with better educational systems do and then adapt it to our circumstances, taking no heed whatsoever to ideologues.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.

I feel that either everyone should be required to dump their religious stuff at the door (and this includes the headscarf), or everyone should be allowed to wear their religious stuff.

Although I don't agree with the idea of abstinence as a policy for everyone, if it's something the parents agree with, I have no idea why the school came down so hard - only on those children.

It's a lifestyle choice - and if we're not going to have criticism of lifestyles allowed, the school needs to STFU.

FRANCE ...Belive it or not has implemented a " leave the religion stuff " at home policy in french schools ...FOR ALL denominations .

Read the article. Then we'll talk.

reading the article was step two on my list of things to do, it came directly after reading the first post (this translates to "I did read it")... and thank you for your highly thought out and contructive reply, I am greatly enlightened... next time just leave it at stfu, it's less insulting.

FRANCE ...Belive it or not has implemented a " leave the religion stuff " at home policy in french schools ...FOR ALL denominations .

Best way to be too, religion just causes arguments (for reference, see last 7 pages.)

Who cares if its gimmicky? It wasn't banned because it was gimmicky besides lots of gimmicky things are allowed in public schools.


I was expressing my opinion of the rings. I didnt say that's why it was banned.

"Waah, you mean old persecutor of the US! Waah!"

Face it - nobody's buying that these are any more religious than a made in China "support the troops!" yellow ribbon magnet. (http://www.bulkfoods.com/images/yellowribbon2.jpg) These rings are nothing but feeble attempts at a political statement, and have nothing to do with religion. If the school had banned crucifixes, but allowed bangles, then you would have had a point. Now, you would only have a point if the school banned these but allowed some Indian equivalent of a political statement for lazy fad followers who crave a cheap gimmick.

Oh, look, more ad hominems and red herrings to top off a typical "anything from the US is bad" rant.

Got anything elese besides your word that they can wear jewelry w/ crucifixes on it or is that just an assumption?

I am trying to point out that apparently it is ok to yell at the 'unacceptable lifestyles' for being different and showing pride in thier life choices. But as soon as someone goes after the majority for the same thing it becomes wrong. Not before.

Has anyone gone on and complained when other non-christians are forced to remove religious/sexual oriantation jewlery because it offends christians? No. But as soon as christians are asked to remove something that is not a treditional representation of their faith in accordance with school dress code the christian community goes up in arms claiming discrimination. As if it only happens to them.

There are regularly threads about groups being discriminated against, minority and majority alike. I didn't see the OP saying it's "only" wrong because it's happening to a majority.

Just because some people are hypocritical doesn't make the practice right.

Only if you believe that the government knows best. Otherwise, it does a lousy job. Schools in the United States are one social experiment after another. The result is a very secular setting, where nearly no learning takes place.
Yes, because obviously the fact that well over 90% of the US population went through public schools at sometime in their lives doesn't reflect on the country's dominance in world events and other fields. It's all inspite of everything we teachers could do to dumb down Americans. :rolleyes:

Oh, look, more ad hominems and red herrings to top off a typical "anything from the US is bad" rant.

Got anything elese besides your word that they can wear jewelry w/ crucifixes on it or is that just an assumption?

BBC says: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3477109.stm

"Students generally have the right in state-run schools to wear religious garb such as a Jewish skullcap, a Muslim scarf or a crucifix, although restrictions can be made if the school has a dress code that is not directed at a particular faith. "

As has already been made clear, the problem here is that the silly fad rings arent bona fide religious costume like a crucifix or a head scarf or a bangle.

The panj kakke of five symbols of the Sikh faith -- kes (uncut hair), kangha (a comb), kara (a steel bangle), kirpan (a sword or knife) and kachcha (special breeches or undergarments).

The Sikh religion constrains its adherants to wear these symbols. They're articles of faith and not optional.

There is no constraint in the Christian churches to wear any item of jewelry or clothing or hairstyle.

A Sikh has no choice in the matter, the so called christian virgins choose to wear their jewelry, they're not constrained to by faith.

BBC says: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3477109.stm

"Students generally have the right in state-run schools to wear religious garb such as a Jewish skullcap, a Muslim scarf or a crucifix, although restrictions can be made if the school has a dress code that is not directed at a particular faith. "

Some actual evidence. Thank you. It is appreciated.

As has already been made clear, the problem here is that the silly fad rings arent bona fide religious costume like a crucifix or a head scarf or a bangle.

To you or I, it may be a "silly fad". To these people, though, it is a serious symbol of thier faith. If we want to go along this route, nearly everything in Wicca would be considered "faddish" as it hasn't been around all that long.

Some actual evidence. Thank you. It is appreciated.



To you or I, it may be a "silly fad". To these people, though, it is a serious symbol of thier faith. If we want to go along this route, nearly everything in Wicca would be considered "faddish" as it hasn't been around all that long.


Wicca has been around much longer in practice then most people give us credit for. And the Pent has been a symbol of nature and polythestic religions for longer then christianity has. So going by your logic christianity is 'faddish'.

Some actual evidence. Thank you. It is appreciated.



To you or I, it may be a "silly fad". To these people, though, it is a serious symbol of thier faith. If we want to go along this route, nearly everything in Wicca would be considered "faddish" as it hasn't been around all that long.




I can't imagine them letting some loon wear a golden crown and a cloak of golden thread because he claims it is a "serious symbol of his faith." Pluralism must have some limits, and it is reasonable to set down baselines that allow some things but not others.

A wiccan or a gold-worshipper might be able to argue successfully that some key token of his faith be permitted. The "silver ring thing club" is not a key token of the christian faith.

The "no jewelry" policy isnt aimed at a particular religion, or at eradicating all religion - it is a civilized society and in civilized societies people sometimes (within reason) have to forego certain things.

double

Some actual evidence. Thank you. It is appreciated.



To you or I, it may be a "silly fad". To these people, though, it is a serious symbol of thier faith. If we want to go along this route, nearly everything in Wicca would be considered "faddish" as it hasn't been around all that long.




I can't imagine them letting some loon wear a golden crown and a cloak of golden thread because he claims it is a "serious symbol of his faith." Pluralism must have some limits, and it is reasonable to set down baselines that allow some things but not others.

A wiccan or a gold-worshipper might be able to argue successfully that some key token of his faith be permitted. The "silver ring thing club" is not a key token of the christian faith.

The "no jewelry" policy isnt aimed at a particular religion, or at eradicating all religion - it is a civilized society and in civilized societies people sometimes (within reason) have to forego certain things.

All that wicca crap was made up by Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley. It's a con trick like the Druids. It was revived in the 1950s again but it's all horseshit for spoiled rich kids. If you were taken seriously then all the major religions have instructions regarding those who pretend to be witches, not very pleasant instructions at all.

The point was, that they allow muslims to wear religious symbolism which is against the dress code, but not christians.
It never said that the headscarf was against the dress code, they only mentioned a ban of jewlery, scarves aren't jewlery but rings are.

At any rate, that silver ring crap is retarded and not really officially part of a religion anyways, it's a new thing and it's not like someone's going to get booted out of a religion for not wearing one.

Oh, look, more ad hominems and red herrings to top off a typical "anything from the US is bad" rant.

Got anything else but "waah! waah! You mean old fomenter of my persecution complex!"?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1800271,00.html

Sikhs and Muslims can wear their religious claptrap in class - but not Christians.

I feel that either everyone should be required to dump their religious stuff at the door (and this includes the headscarf), or everyone should be allowed to wear their religious stuff.

Although I don't agree with the idea of abstinence as a policy for everyone, if it's something the parents agree with, I have no idea why the school came down so hard - only on those children.

It's a lifestyle choice - and if we're not going to have criticism of lifestyles allowed, the school needs to STFU.


Just about every observer in the UK - from the Guardian to the Daily Skirt - condemned this hipo-bulldust.
It wasn't a religious decision, but a safety-issue. Or so this school-board pretends.

Of course, defended by the Secularists - which goes to show you just what kind of folks they are.

So how do you justfiy Muslim girls wearing headscarves and the Sikh girls wearing their "bangles" ( whatever those are )? Those are both against the dress code as well as being religious symbols.

Do you happen to know the location of the school's dress code on the internet?

Wicca has been around much longer in practice then most people give us credit for

No it hasn't.

It is a hodge-podge of differing beliefs with a little bit of romanticism mixed in.

Like this:

There are Muslim girls in the school who are allowed to wear the headcovering, although that isn't part of the school uniform, and Sikh girls who are allowed the wear the bangle although that isn't part of the uniform. It's a discriminatory policy.


Thats a load of bolloks frankly, for us Sikhs the 'bangle' is an article of faith that Guru Ji tells us to wear at all times.

These rings represent what exactly about Christianity? Also I thought that idoltary was a big no no in the Christian faith, whats the big hooha about then.

When England was a kingdom, we had a king. When we were an empire, we had an emperor. Now we're a country ... we have Tony Blair.

That's very good. Even though I like(d) Tony.

To you or I, it may be a "silly fad". To these people, though, it is a serious symbol of thier faith.
It has nothing to do with their faith.

I'm not sure how far respect for religious customs should go in a class room, what if one of the students decided to become one of those naked monks?

All that wicca crap was made up by Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley. It's a con trick like the Druids. It was revived in the 1950s again but it's all horseshit for spoiled rich kids. If you were taken seriously then all the major religions have instructions regarding those who pretend to be witches, not very pleasant instructions at all.
people have a choice of what to worship you know.

*Shakes Head*

The 'real' reason the braclets are not being allowed is because it condradicts school policy on sex education. They are just using the 'no jewlery' clause of the dress code as the enforcement mechanism.

The other 'religious' symbology is not in conflict with the approved, government sponsered ciriculum and therefore has no reason to be inforced.

Education can not be allowed in the hands of puritanical, conservative individuals. How are we going to effectively promote a progressive, liberal society with their constant interference? Our scientifically proven teaching methods will allow us to derive the most effective employment opportunites for teachers for generations.

39 posts before anyone figured it out.

The Sikh religion constrains its adherants to wear these symbols. They're articles of faith and not optional.

There is no constraint in the Christian churches to wear any item of jewelry or clothing or hairstyle.

This is an important distinction also, although one might argue that Christian women are also not to cut their hair and that all Christians shouldn't wear jewelry. That is not how the verses are modernly interpreted, but certainly parts of the CE canon could be understood that way.

Their religious symbols would have been OK, had they not been in the form of jewelery. If they want to express their Christianity, they can do it through clothing.

To me, it's as simple as this: Muslim girls, under the rules of their religion, are forbidden to go anywhere without a headscarf. The christian girls are not forbidden to go anywhere without a chastity ring. It's like wearing a shirt that says "Jesus is my Homeboy." It shows off religious pride and identity, but it's not nessacary under the religious doctrine of Christianity.

You're absolutely right, it's completely hypocritical. It's things like this that make fundamentalist Christians convinced that the Left hates them above all other religions and fully intends to destroy them. If things like this keep happening I'm going to agree with them. Of course, I am not that surprised. In America public school graduation speeches, any mention of the Christian God is forbidden, but call Stalin your savior and it'll be okay.

Do they ban crucifixes? Simple crosses? The ring isn't a religious symbol. It's a piece of jewelry that indicates membership in a club. A religiously themed club, but a club none the less.

OK, here are some pictures of bangles:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=indian%20bangles&rs=0&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fr2=tab-web

And pictures of examples of the rings in question:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=true+love+waits+rings&rs=0&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&vf=

IMO, both are jewelry, and both should be banned. Or else the policy should be changed.

OK, here are some pictures of bangles:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=indian%20bangles&rs=0&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fr2=tab-web

And pictures of examples of the rings in question:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=true+love+waits+rings&rs=0&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&vf=

IMO, both are jewelry, and both should be banned. Or else the policy should be changed.
Not if the bangles are part of the religion/belief system (which is very thorough for Sikhs if I recall). The rings signify nothing more than those kids are in a club, not to insult other clubs. It has nothing to do with the religion, belief system, or "culture" of Christianity.

The rings are personal decoration, nothing more.

I'm sort of curious. Do teachers also have to take off their jewelry? Wedding rings? Earrings? I don't get the student jewelry ban anyway, but it should at least be entire school policy, not just students... right?

Also, why is it a safety issue? I understand (from referreeing) that at high speeds even little bits of metal can be dangerous, which is why we have kids take off watches, hard bracelets, basically anything except religious/devotional jewelry, before we let them onto the field for a soccer game. But in school? I don't get it.

According to the other religions, if they don't wear the headdresses or bangles they'll go to hell, or whatever they're equivalent is.
Those girls won't go to hell for not wearing their chastity ring for 8 hours out of the day.

I'm sort of curious. Do teachers also have to take off their jewelry? Wedding rings? Earrings? I don't get the student jewelry ban anyway, but it should at least be entire school policy, not just students... right?
I hadn't thought of that. Somehow I doubt that teachers aren't allowed wear jewelery.

Also, why is it a safety issue? I understand (from referreeing) that at high speeds even little bits of metal can be dangerous, which is why we have kids take off watches, hard bracelets, basically anything except religious/devotional jewelry, before we let them onto the field for a soccer game. But in school? I don't get it.
Well the students surely play games at break time, probably football games and the like.

To me, it's as simple as this: Muslim girls, under the rules of their religion, are forbidden to go anywhere without a headscarf.The koran doesn't really prescribe any such thing. And in many muslim countries it isn't even common to wear a headscarf.

I'm sort of curious. Do teachers also have to take off their jewelry? Wedding rings? Earrings? I don't get the student jewelry ban anyway, but it should at least be entire school policy, not just students... right?

Also, why is it a safety issue? I understand (from referreeing) that at high speeds even little bits of metal can be dangerous, which is why we have kids take off watches, hard bracelets, basically anything except religious/devotional jewelry, before we let them onto the field for a soccer game. But in school? I don't get it.
At my old school, it applied to teachers too. You never know when a football (even indoors) is going to come flying past your ear and tear the earring out. If that's going to happen anywhere, it's going to happen in a school. And trust me, I've seen worse things than footballs fly through the air indoors.

At my old school, it applied to teachers too. You never know when a football (even indoors) is going to come flying past your ear and tear the earring out. If that's going to happen anywhere, it's going to happen in a school. And trust me, I've seen worse things than footballs fly through the air indoors.

Eh, well, okay. Guess that makes sense then.

When England was a kingdom, we had a king. When we were an empire, we had an emperor. Now we're a country ... we have Tony Blair.

That's very good. Even though I like(d) Tony.

When you're a country, shouldn't you have a count?

The koran doesn't really prescribe any such thing. And in many muslim countries it isn't even common to wear a headscarf.

It perscribes that women should dress modestly, and expose only their faces and hands.

It perscribes that women should dress modestly, and expose only their faces and hands.I know it says the first, but I'm not sure about the latter.. Certainly it suggest they shouldn't show off their beauty. But that does not equate hiding everything but face and hands.
But if you can quote the Koran to the contrary, please do so.

I know it says the first, but I'm not sure about the latter.. Certainly it suggest they shouldn't show off their beauty. But that does not equate hiding everything but face and hands.
But if you can quote the Koran to the contrary, please do so.

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed."

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them [when they go abroad]. That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful"

According to the other religions, if they don't wear the headdresses or bangles they'll go to hell, or whatever they're equivalent is.
Those girls won't go to hell for not wearing their chastity ring for 8 hours out of the day.

Hey, they've already banned the giant sandwich boards that have "I'm too stuck up to put out for you" written on them in big red letters. Without the rings how are the boys going to know which girls are using reverse psychology to get them into bed?

Holy crap, thank you! I cannot believe it took until the third page for someone to point this out.

Not only should this have been the first, obvious comment to the OP, it should, in a perfect world, have kept the OP from making the thread in the first place.

These rings are *not* crucifixes. They are merely a symbol of something that happens to be based in a Christian "movement" of some sort.
Well, just because my neighborhood priest thinks it'd be awesome if his congregation all wore a heart-shaped earring to show that they're members of his "Supreme love of Jesus" Sunday school class, doesn't mean that would somehow make my earring more important than any other jewelry that is being banned.

Please people, think.
Quoted for... Yay!

Also: What the hells?
US President George Bush has heavily advocated abstinence teaching, budgeting $170 million a year for it. However, research by Columbia and Yale Universities found while those who pledge chastity may delay first sex, 88 per cent of them eventually break the promise, and are then less likely than non-pledgers to use contraception.
:eek: You've got to be kidding me!!

When you're a country, shouldn't you have a count?

Yep, with a silent "o"

Schools generally disallow the wearing of jewellery. If anything, this is uniform and fair enforcement. Allowing these pupils to wear their rings simply because they're religious constitutes and endorsement of said religion.

A fair statement, if you dont already allow the wearing of the Muslim headscarf. If Muslims are allowed to wear the head scarf but Christians not the rings, simply because allowing the rings because they are religious is endorsing that religion, then logically people should be allowed to wear non-religiously required headscarfs as well. It is either all or none. Either you allow clothing of religious signifcence of all kinds, or you dont.

Yep, with a silent "o"

Margaret Thatcher?

and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness

The only part of this entire quote that mentions anything to do with the head is here enclosed. The word "veil" and in this contex, it means to cover the buxom. I dont see anything in that quote that says women are demanded to wear the headscaf.

It never said that the headscarf was against the dress code, they only mentioned a ban of jewlery, scarves aren't jewlery but rings are.


The head scarf was not specificly mentioned, but headwear was included.

Either you allow all clothing of religious significence, or you allow none. The latter is more favourible to me, simply because the arguments over whether or not something is of religious significence are too complex.

Eh. It's a stupid rule. However, it isn't an anti-Christian rule. It discriminates against anyone wearing jewellry.

Well, let's condense this argument to its most basic elements.

One or more groups are allowed to wear items of religious significance even through they are against a strict interpretation of the dress code under religious grounds, a singular group is denied the wearing of any items even if they are against the dress code... Therefore the application of the policies is being steered by the administration to be discriminitory upon one particular group.

You're right, it's not designed to be discrimintory, however its being applied in a discrimintory manner.... And how it's applied is what is wrong.

A fair statement, if you dont already allow the wearing of the Muslim headscarf. If Muslims are allowed to wear the head scarf but Christians not the rings, simply because allowing the rings because they are religious is endorsing that religion, then logically people should be allowed to wear non-religiously required headscarfs as well. It is either all or none. Either you allow clothing of religious signifcence of all kinds, or you dont.
But the rings aren't religious. The rings indicate the person wearing it has made some manner of absitence vow with the Silver Ring Thing people. It isn's a Christian religious artifact the way traditional Muslim dress is.

The only part of this entire quote that mentions anything to do with the head is here enclosed. The word "veil" and in this contex, it means to cover the buxom. I dont see anything in that quote that says women are demanded to wear the headscaf.

One arguement that I came across was that "beauty" refers to hair. Naturally, many people aren't the world consider hair to be beautiful. Therefore, a woman, in concealing her beauty, should cover her hair.

The head scarf was not specificly mentioned, but headwear was included.

Either you allow all clothing of religious significence, or you allow none. The latter is more favourible to me, simply because the arguments over whether or not something is of religious significence are too complex.

Not necessarily. The rings are part of a campaign that promotes abstinence among teens, and the rings are a symbol of a commitment to abstinence before marriage. Even though the ideals that are part of the campaign's groundwork are Christian, the rings themselves are symbols of sexual intent, or sexual status, not of religious status or religious commitment.

To those saying the ring is not of religous significance:

No religious icon is handed down from god.

It's all man made.

The Silver Ring (Thing) is no less valid than the fish or cross - neither of which has the Jesus Brand(TM) Of Approval.

Most UK schools allow children of "travelling people" to wear jewlry for cultural reasons as well.

While I disagree with the Silver Ring Thing, I'm outraged by this.

To those saying the ring is not of religous significance:

No religious icon is handed down from god.

It's all man made.

The Silver Ring (Thing) is no less valid than the fish or cross - neither of which has the Jesus Brand(TM) Of Approval.

Most UK schools allow children of "travelling people" to wear jewlry for cultural reasons as well.

While I disagree with the Silver Ring Thing, I'm outraged by this.

Outraged at what? That girls can't wear purity rings that they got from a club? Would you be outraged if they weren't allowed to wear their Girl Scouts badges to school for dress code reasons?

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed."

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them [when they go abroad]. That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful"I really don't see where this prescribes covering up everything except hands and face.
It clearly says women should "veil" their bosom. But aside from that any apparant "adornment" may be displayed (and it seems to me anything displayed would be apparant). Nevermind "adornment" is a vague term.
And then the latter part just adds they ought to draw their cloaks round them abroad (and hardly anyone wears cloaks nowadays anyway). And it seems mostly a suggestion so that they aren't annoyed. So if they are annoyed regardless, or because of it, it goes right out the window.

One might just add, that wearing a headscarf in a society wear it is quite uncommon, is far from modest. It attracts specific attention to onesself.

I really don't see where this prescribes covering up everything except hands and face.
It clearly says women should "veil" their bosom. But aside from that any apparant "adornment" may be displayed (and it seems to me anything displayed would be apparant). Nevermind "adornment" is a vague term.
And then the latter part just adds they ought to draw their cloaks round them abroad (and hardly anyone wears cloaks nowadays anyway). And it seems mostly a suggestion so that they aren't annoyed. So if they are annoyed regardless, or because of it, it goes right out the window.

One might just add, that wearing a headscarf in a society wear it is quite uncommon, is far from modest. It attracts specific attention to onesself.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016142&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Why don't you read what a muslim woman has to say about it?

Outraged at what? That girls can't wear purity rings that they got from a club? Would you be outraged if they weren't allowed to wear their Girl Scouts badges to school for dress code reasons?

When gypsys can wear jewlry because their house has wheels.
When Christians can wear symbols that have never been "endorsed" by their god, but popularised by faith groups throughout history (like this ring).
When other faiths can ignore uniform all together, yes, I'm outraged.

The ring has religious and cultural significance.

Hell, the cross is a symbol from the world's largest club.

Then again, before I left school, we were allowed to wear upto 2 "charity" bracelets as part of uniform.

I wore a rainbow slinkey.

Needless to say, I was marched to the head of year. I claimed it was a gay pride charity bracelet. I pointed to the box saying it could be worn as a bracelet, and showed the reciept showing it had been brought at a gay pride parade from a charity stand.

They asked if I would be willing to host a whole school assembly about the Gay Pride parade, and where people could buy rainbow slinkies. I said yes. I was allowed to keep the slinkey.

Never got to do the assembly.

The point is, school uniforms are a terrrible idea to start with. American public schools have the right idea. Do away with the things entirely.

When gypsys can wear jewlry because their house has wheels.
When Christians can wear symbols that have never been "endorsed" by their god, but popularised by faith groups throughout history (like this ring).
When other faiths can ignore uniform all together, yes, I'm outraged.

The ring has religious and cultural significance.

Hell, the cross is a symbol from the world's largest club.

Then again, before I left school, we were allowed to wear upto 2 "charity" bracelets as part of uniform.

I wore a rainbow slinkey.

Needless to say, I was marched to the head of year. I claimed it was a gay pride charity bracelet. I pointed to the box saying it could be worn as a bracelet, and showed the reciept showing it had been brought at a gay pride parade from a charity stand.

They asked if I would be willing to host a whole school assembly about the Gay Pride parade, and where people could buy rainbow slinkies. I said yes. I was allowed to keep the slinkey.

Never got to do the assembly.

The point is, school uniforms are a terrrible idea to start with. American public schools have the right idea. Do away with the things entirely.

Hey, I don't agree with dress codes either. I've been sent to my principal many times for wearing shirts exposing a few cm of my navel. But, face it, that's no the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the difference between muslims wearing Hijabs and Christians wearing purity rings. The Hijab is a recognised part of Islam, nessacary under the Qu'arn's teachings. The rings, on the other hand, are never mentioned, or even suggested in any way, in the bible. Sure, purity is, and so the girls are allowed to be virgins. But is the purity ring a recognised part of the Christian religion. The answer is no. It's simply there so that these girls can advertise their virginity in an attempt to persaude other people to join their little chastity club.

When gypsys can wear jewlry because their house has wheels.
When Christians can wear symbols that have never been "endorsed" by their god, but popularised by faith groups throughout history (like this ring).
When other faiths can ignore uniform all together, yes, I'm outraged.

The ring has religious and cultural significance.

Hell, the cross is a symbol from the world's largest club.

Then again, before I left school, we were allowed to wear upto 2 "charity" bracelets as part of uniform.

I wore a rainbow slinkey.

Needless to say, I was marched to the head of year. I claimed it was a gay pride charity bracelet. I pointed to the box saying it could be worn as a bracelet, and showed the reciept showing it had been brought at a gay pride parade from a charity stand.

They asked if I would be willing to host a whole school assembly about the Gay Pride parade, and where people could buy rainbow slinkies. I said yes. I was allowed to keep the slinkey.

Never got to do the assembly.

The point is, school uniforms are a terrrible idea to start with. American public schools have the right idea. Do away with the things entirely.
The rings have no religious significance. The rings demonstrate a vow of abstinence, something which is not exclusive to Christians. Besides the fact that the Sikh and Muslim artifacts/dress are required by their faith, which the Silver Ring is not.

I personally think uniforms are a good idea. For one it prepares you for the workplace(among the purposes of an education, is it not?), almost all of which have a dress code or uniform. It also prevents students being bullied for not keeping up with fashions(and yes, I am aware that uniforms do not totally elimate bullying so I pre-emptively tell anyone who thinks there should not be any for this reason to stop eating since you don't get 100% of the nutrition in your food)

Again, if it was just the fact that Sikh and Muslim artifacts/dress are required by their faith (and that in itself isn't much of an arguement - everyone sins after all) then I'd have a weaker case.

But you can wear a cross in school.

That's not required. That's an artifical sign of faith, no more valid than the ring.

And a dress code is not a uniform. If schools had a smart dress code (as is typical for over 17s in the UK - suits and the like) then it wouldn't be as demeaning as a uniform.

And kids are going to be picked on. If not for their shirt then for their shoes. If not for the make of their clothes, then for the quality. It's not comperable to not getting 100% nutruition from food. It is, in fact, pointless.

All that wicca crap was made up by Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley. It's a con trick like the Druids. It was revived in the 1950s again but it's all horseshit for spoiled rich kids. If you were taken seriously then all the major religions have instructions regarding those who pretend to be witches, not very pleasant instructions at all.

And if you follow christianity for example then you hold people who make 'miracles of god' in high esteme. Make them saints or some such. Along with following the words of one man rewritten by six men. And to top it off you believe the one man rose from the dead. Last I checked that was black magick. Aka evil and hell worthy.

Yet when a religion comes around that advocates acceptance and nondescrimination, and is BELIEVABLE without all the miracle an zombie bull shit and you follow it you're a witch, satan's handmaiden, demon-worshiper, satanist ect...

Again, if it was just the fact that Sikh and Muslim artifacts/dress are required by their faith (and that in itself isn't much of an arguement - everyone sins after all) then I'd have a weaker case.

But you can wear a cross in school.

That's not required. That's an artifical sign of faith, no more valid than the ring.
It's a lot more valid than the ring. The crucifix(distinct from a cross) is the universally recognised symbol of Christianity, and endorsed by the Vatican(I assume). A chastity ring is not a symbol of any religion, but of chastity.

And a dress code is not a uniform. If schools had a smart dress code (as is typical for over 17s in the UK - suits and the like) then it wouldn't be as demeaning as a uniform.
No it is not. Though I don't see how uniforms are demeaning.

And kids are going to be picked on. If not for their shirt then for their shoes. If not for the make of their clothes, then for the quality. It's not comperable to not getting 100% nutruition from food. It is, in fact, pointless.
Oh wonderful.

Yes kids are going to get bullied, but does that mean we shouldn't try and stop this? Uniforms only help with the problem as opposed to totally eliminating it, so they are worthless? You know that laws don't stop crime, are they just as worthless? Modern medicine cannot cure all diseases or heal all injuries, should we stop training doctors?

That's not required. That's an artifical sign of faith, no more valid than the ring.

You obviously missed where the ring has nothing to do with the faith.

You obviously missed where the ring has nothing to do with the faith.

Maybe the school is concerned about having to deal with the Nazgûl?

Maybe the school is concerned about having to deal with the Nazgûl?
Nah, the principal has The One Ring.

am i the only one who sees these rings as more political than religious?

am i the only one who sees these rings as more political than religious?
No, I think people of that opinion are in the majority.

No, I think people of that opinion are in the majority.

Ifreann, where did you go to school perchance? (Second level if you are still there)

The rings have no religious significance. The rings demonstrate a vow of abstinence, something which is not exclusive to Christians. Besides the fact that the Sikh and Muslim artifacts/dress are required by their faith, which the Silver Ring is not.


This is not true. The Quran says that women should dress modestly, but the headscarf is a cultural, not a doctrinally religious object.

I don't recall reading in the Bible where rings are a religious requirement for Christians. I do recall reading in Qu'ran that headscarves are.

This is not true. The Quran says that women should dress modestly, but the headscarf is a cultural, not a doctrinally religious object.

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms, and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to God together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful." - Surah an-Nur verse 31

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms, and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to God together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful." - Surah an-Nur verse 31


Sounds religious to me. Either we all get to do our religion thing in our manner of dress, or none of us should be permitted to do so. Regardless of how silly anyone else might think wearing a ring or scarf or other accoutrement might be.

Sounds religious to me. Either we all get to do our religion thing in our manner of dress, or none of us should be permitted to do so. Regardless of how silly anyone else might think wearing a ring or scarf or other accoutrement might be.

Can you quote from the Bible where wearing an abstinence ring is an established part of the Christian religion? If not, then there are no grounds for allowing the rings. No religion = No ring.

Otherwise, what's to stop kids from saying that they must buttfuck a random girl three times a day to prove their loyalty to Jesus?

Just because someone says something is part of their religion, doesn't mean it is.

Sounds religious to me. Either we all get to do our religion thing in our manner of dress, or none of us should be permitted to do so. Regardless of how silly anyone else might think wearing a ring or scarf or other accoutrement might be.
Do I have to say every damn page that the rings arn't even remotely related to the Christian faith?

Do I have to say every damn page that the rings arn't even remotely related to the Christian faith?
Are you and the government officials going to say what is related to Christianity and what is not? They've obviously gotten the rings from a religious program at their church.

Here in the US, the government isn't in the business of telling people what is part of their religion, and what isn't.

Maybe you should read up on our First Amendment.

Here in the US, the government isn't in the business of telling people what is part of their religion, and what isn't.

No, but we're talking about a British school.

Also, there are plenty of cases similar in the US where people have tried to break dress code based on religion and the primary thing the school has tried to find out is if it is an established part of the religion in question.

If not, then the dress code is enforced.

Are you and the government officials going to say what is related to Christianity and what is not? They've obviously gotten the rings from a religious program at their church.

Here in the US, the government isn't in the business of telling people what is part of their religion, and what isn't.

Maybe you should read up on our First Amendment.

Look at the purpose of the the rings. They do not say "I am a christian." They say "I am a virgin and will stay that way until marriage." The rings are symbols of the girl's sexual status, not their religious status.

Look at the purpose of the the rings. They do not say "I am a christian." They say "I am a virgin and will stay that way until marriage." The rings are symbols of the girl's sexual status, not their religious status.
Look at where the program originates. Their church.

No, but we're talking about a British school.

Also, there are plenty of cases similar in the US where people have tried to break dress code based on religion and the primary thing the school has tried to find out is if it is an established part of the religion in question.

If not, then the dress code is enforced.

Here in Virginia, the rings are considered religious.

Are you and the government officials going to say what is related to Christianity and what is not? They've obviously gotten the rings from a religious program at their church.
That doesn't mean they have anything to do with the religion. They are related to a private group or groups that is not an official part of any church who go around telling everyone chastity is it and having them buy personal decorations to signify to themselves that they will be chaste. It is like tying a ribbon around your friend so you don't forget to buy bread at the grocery store.

Maybe you should read up on our First Amendment.
Oh, so you're gonna throw strawmen at me are you? I guess I will have to get me some torches and flying monkeys.

Here in Virginia, the rings are considered religious.
You can consider them man-eating plants for all I care, that doesn't make them so.

That doesn't mean they have anything to do with the religion. They are related to a private group or groups that is not an official part of any church who go around telling everyone chastity is it and having them buy personal decorations to signify to themselves that they will be chaste. It is like tying a ribbon around your friend so you don't forget to buy bread at the grocery store.

Oh, so you're gonna throw strawmen at me are you? I guess I will have to get me some torches and flying monkeys.

I guess you don't even know what a strawman is.

Here in the US, the government isn't allowed to say what is part of your religion. If you belong to a religion, and your church decides to tie ribbons around their heads to remember to buy bread, the government can't tell them to knock it off because it isn't official.

Here in the US, anyone can start a religion, and make up any wild shit they like. Look at Scientology. Do you see a government ban on it here, like they have in Germany? In Germany, the government says it's not a real religion. But here in the US, the government can't say ANYTHING.

Same goes for any program or policy that any individual parishoner decides to accept as a religious committment - like committing (however unwisely) to abstinence and wearing a ring.

There are just fewer rights in the UK, that's all.

Look at where the program originates. Their church.

The program originated in Arizona with a couple that decided to sell rings as symbols of abstinence. The inspiration for the rings and their distribution is part of a program that ties abstinence to Christianity, but it isn't part of church dogma or religious teachings. No sermon I ever went to told me that I would burn in Hell for leaving my chastity ring at home, and no passages in the Bible say to wear a ring to symbolize virginity.

It's a lot more valid than the ring. The crucifix(distinct from a cross) is the universally recognised symbol of Christianity, and endorsed by the Vatican(I assume). A chastity ring is not a symbol of any religion, but of chastity.

What makes the Vatican any more valid than the Silver Ring Thing?

No it is not. Though I don't see how uniforms are demeaning.

You don't see it? Well there's certainly no need to reference years of psychological research dating back to 1973 and Haney's Stanford prison experiment. Because you don't see it, you're obviously right. How silly of me.

Oh wonderful.

Yes kids are going to get bullied, but does that mean we shouldn't try and stop this?

Yes. Let's try to help.

Uniforms only help with the problem as opposed to totally eliminating it, so they are worthless?

Problem, they don't. The same kids who would be picked on for not wearing fashionable clothes, are the ones who still get picked on for wearing the wrong coat, or the wrong shoes, or not having the designer make of the uniform but a hand-me-down.

You know that laws don't stop crime, are they just as worthless?

YES! If a law doesn't stop crime, it needs to be reviewed and changed, new laws must be added or the way the law is enforced must be changed. And guess what - that's exactly what happens!

Modern medicine cannot cure all diseases or heal all injuries, should we stop training doctors?

I appauld you. Thank you for taking my arguement and deliberately extending it to the point of ridiculousness. You've managed to successfully discredit me. Obviously nothing of what I have to say is of any value.

The crucifix is a symbol of culture. It is an item that the followers of Jesus chose to use to represent their faith.

Go onto the streets and look at the cars passing by.

I'm going to bet you see a lot more with the shape of a fish on the back than you will with a crucifix.

Symbols of faith are invented by man. The ring has been a symbol of commitment longer than the crucifix has been a symbol of Christianity.

And here's something to remember - these are engagement rings. Last I checked, marriage was a part of the Christian religion.

The Silver Ring Thing is run by Christians. Their message, is Christian. For all intents and purposes, you could consider them a demonination of Christianity.

Can you quote from the Bible where wearing a crucifix is an established part of the Christian religion? Because I can quote a few passages on idolatry. And guess what? Unlike the Koran, the Bible does not claim to be the exact words of God, but a record made by his followers.

Faiths change.

Maybe we should enforce that all public schools should serve fish on Friday for Catholics?

Like it or not, there's no reason for the Silver Ring not to be counted as a religious symbol.

And once more I cite that (in Kent at least) Gypsy children are allowed to wear Jewlry for cultural reasons. Why can't virgins do the same?

I guess you don't even know what a strawman is.

Here in the US, the government isn't allowed to say what is part of your religion. If you belong to a religion, and your church decides to tie ribbons around their heads to remember to buy bread, the government can't tell them to knock it off because it isn't official.
Too bad Britain isn't in the US.

Fly, my pretties, fly, ahahaha, ahahaha!

Why can't virgins do the same?


"Virgin" has not been a culture since the ancient Greeks.

True, in Britian the Government decides what religion you should follow, and how you should follow it.

Hell, they have set the precident for seizing religious property and burning people at the stake for non-conformity.

If the British Government doesn't want some Evil American form of Christianity they can kick it out.

After all we know that if Britian inforced a mass conversion to Islam, then they would no longer need to participate in the war on terror, Iraq, or worry about Al Quadea ever again.

Therefore it would in the best intrests of Britian to accept the Koran and the Word of the One True God immediatly as law. Oh, and make a member of the Taliban as Minister for Education and Religion.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016142&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Why don't you read what a muslim woman has to say about it?She doesn't seem to add much, and certainly not to points I put into question..

But fine, I guess I'd have to ask someone else if I really want to know.

True, in Britian the Government decides what religion you should follow, and how you should follow it.

Hell, they have set the precident for seizing religious property and burning people at the stake for non-conformity.

If the British Government doesn't want some Evil American form of Christianity they can kick it out.

After all we know that if Britian inforced a mass conversion to Islam, then they would no longer need to participate in the war on terror, Iraq, or worry about Al Quadea ever again.

Therefore it would in the best intrests of Britian to accept the Koran and the Word of the One True God immediatly as law. Oh, and make a member of the Taliban as Minister for Education and Religion.

Yeah but we'd have to appoint an Islamic Minsiter of Defence.
And we've have to schism from the established Islamic Sects to make the School Of England, burn followers of the hadith at the stake, bring in a Shi'te monarch who declares the School of England to be heretical and makes us a Caliphate, then have her deposed to bring back our own denomination.

Plus we'd have to dig out a crowbar to pry Blair from Bush's arse cheeks.

It's not worth the hassel.

True, in Britian the Government decides what religion you should follow, and how you should follow it.

Hell, they have set the precident for seizing religious property and burning people at the stake for non-conformity.

If the British Government doesn't want some Evil American form of Christianity they can kick it out.

After all we know that if Britian inforced a mass conversion to Islam, then they would no longer need to participate in the war on terror, Iraq, or worry about Al Quadea ever again.

Therefore it would in the best intrests of Britian to accept the Koran and the Word of the One True God immediatly as law. Oh, and make a member of the Taliban as Minister for Education and Religion.

You get the "How The Hell Did We Get Here?" Award, given to the poster who can go the farthest off-topic in the most ludicrous manner. This award is given in recognition of your departure from the topic of Chastity Rings to the topic of Britain becoming a Muslim state. Congratulations, and enjoy your award.

The program originated in Arizona with a couple that decided to sell rings as symbols of abstinence. The inspiration for the rings and their distribution is part of a program that ties abstinence to Christianity, but it isn't part of church dogma or religious teachings. No sermon I ever went to told me that I would burn in Hell for leaving my chastity ring at home, and no passages in the Bible say to wear a ring to symbolize virginity.
Agreed it is more of a personal choice of dress disguised as a religious symbol … I mean that’s like me saying that the required trousers are not acceptable by my religion when my religion actually says no such thing its just my personal wishes.

*Laughs*

You both missed my real point, which was hidden behind a fairly ironic turn Britian Muslim concept...but oh well

So let me be a little more blunt rather than ironic,

England has never been tolerant of either 'nonconformist' religious ideas or religious ideas which might erode the established power base.

Never has been in the past, never will be in the future. The Government has a firm grip upon religion and always will.

The rings undermine the authority of the school, and therefore must go.

*Laughs*

You both missed my real point, which was hidden behind a fairly ironic turn Britian Muslim concept...but oh well

So let me be a little more blunt rather than ironic,

England has never been tolerant of either 'nonconformist' religious ideas or religious ideas which might erode the established power base.

Never has been in the past, never will be in the future. The Government has a firm grip upon religion and always will.

The rings undermine the authority of the school, and therefore must go.

Which is why us "V" style characters must make a stand for anarchy!