NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19806312/?GT1=10150


Banned from a british public school under their ban of jewelry.

They argued it was a religious symbol. School said it wasn't.

the court sided with the school.


right move? wrong move? your view?

Purity ring is not a god damn religious symbol. It's a stick up your ass symbol. Not the same.

if jewelry is banned it's banned right? I mean do the Sikhs or whatever get to wear their jewelry there?

Hell, crucifixes are only a ripped off symbol of the faith.

if jewelry is banned it's banned right? I mean do the Sikhs or whatever get to wear their jewelry there?

Irrelevant, because the Sikh "kara" is one of the central symbols for the religion and baptised Sikhs have to wear them. "Purity rings" are not for Christianity - they are just a stupid fad for imbeciles.

Stupid girl. Unless being a virgin is a bloody religion now, she ought to have that ring chucked out a window.

A purity ring is not a religious symbol. It has absolutely nothing to do with ones religion. As such the court was absolutely correct in deciding in favour of the school.

The school has a clear dress code, which explicitly prohibits the use of jewelry (for good reasons). The purity ring broke that code. If the student feels that strongly about it, then she should change school to one that will allow her to wear the ring, it is an option she has.

I have inside information which states she wore the ring so she could fuck anyone she wants and no one could call her on it. That's the real reason the court didn't let her wear it. And that's the truth.

f the student feels that strongly about it, then she should change school to one that will allow her to wear the ring, it is an option she has.

That's a dangerous ideal. Running away from the rules isn't solving anything for anyone but yourself. Not to mention it's impossible in a lot of situations. She was right to stand up for herself.

They should be called "denial rings", but hey.

The court was right. "Virginal purity" is far too widespread a concept to ever be claimed by any one religion.

Besides, don't these guys have old episodes of Family Guy? If you impose abstinence, they'll just stick their cocks in your daughters' ears. [A parody of the fact that so-called "virgins" still perform oral sex, hand jobs and tittyfuck their hormonal boyfriends, thus making the hymen the only virginal thing about them.]

I have inside information which states she wore the ring so she could fuck anyone she wants and no one could call her on it. That's the real reason the court didn't let her wear it. And that's the truth.


We're suppsed to believe that because you say so? What, have you banged this chick? Sorry. Not buyin' it.

I find it amusing how just about all of you in general like to smash someone for wanting to wear something that she believes represents her religion. Such symbols of religion are solely up to the person who wants them to represent something. It I truly want a nail to represent my religion then it does. Oh and it is not a stick it up your ass ring as a certain moron has already stated. It is a ring that is to represent one sexual purity. Just because all of you don't have the ability to wear one does not give the right to call it a stick it up your ass ring, and disclaim it as a religious symbol.

Irrelevant, because the Sikh "kara" is one of the central symbols for the religion and baptised Sikhs have to wear them. "Purity rings" are not for Christianity - they are just a stupid fad for imbeciles.

it's not irrelevant. Should only the religious have rights in these situations? Should one class be held higher than another, either you can wear jewelry or you can't.

If jewelry is banned, then it's banned.

it's not irrelevant. Should only the religious have rights in these situations? Should one class be held higher than another, either you can wear jewelry or you can't.

If jewelry is banned, then it's banned.

Don't you remember, religions need special treatment.

so-called "virgins" still perform oral sex, hand jobs and tittyfuck their hormonal boyfriends

...but not nearly enough!

:D

We're suppsed to believe that because you say so? What, have you banged this chick? Sorry. Not buyin' it.

'Twas a stupid joke.

I find it amusing how just about all of you in general like to smash someone for wanting to wear something that she believes represents her religion. Such symbols of religion are solely up to the person who wants them to represent something. It I truly want a nail to represent my religion then it does. Oh and it is not a stick it up your ass ring as a certain moron has already stated. It is a ring that is to represent one sexual purity.

God is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT, and yet cares that you wear a ring to symbolize your pledge of chastity? Surely He knows what you've done, or even thought about doing. The ring is a SHOWY declaration -- something God is supposed to forbid. The ring allows people to feel holier/purer-than-thou -- a bit prideful, isn't it? It is not specific to a religion, and was right to be banned under the school's "no bling" policy.

Just because all of you don't have the ability to wear one does not give the right to call it a stick it up your ass ring, and disclaim it as a religious symbol.

Wow. I've not heard something so juvenile for quite some time. You have no idea what anyone here has or hasn't done. We have the right to call it whatever we want -- it's an online forum and therefore the very cauldron of societal discussion, and yes, judgement for a segment of the world.

Just make your case without resorting to schoolyard gainsaying...if you can.

That's a dangerous ideal. Running away from the rules isn't solving anything for anyone but yourself. Not to mention it's impossible in a lot of situations. She was right to stand up for herself.

Wrong.

She has the choice of sticking to her principles or accepting the court ruling. If she chooses the first she is not running away from anything. I was not advocating that she should not have tried the court action, but she did and she lost. So should she now keep the school and quit using the ring, or keep the ring and quit going to that school. the choice is hers.

I don't think they do.

They do, otherwise they are a pain in the arse.

it's not irrelevant. Should only the religious have rights in these situations? Should one class be held higher than another, either you can wear jewelry or you can't.

If jewelry is banned, then it's banned.

Freedom of religion tends to stand higher than school dress codes, and besides the kara is a not a simple piece of jewellery. As one of the five Kakars it is central to Sikhism and a Sikh that has performed the Amrit Sanskar ceremony has to wear them at all times. They are not even symbols, but in fact articles of faith which cannot be done without. There is no comparison to a piece of jewellery.

Don't you remember, religions need special treatment.

I don't think they do.

'Twas a stupid joke.

[not kidding]

Look, I got nothing against bad jokes -- but if YOU want to make jokes, you have to make them DIFFERENT from your usual posts OR make your usual posts more coherent, sensible and less full of crap. Otherwise, it's really hard to tell when you're joking.

[/not kidding]

Freedom of religion tends to stand higher than school dress codes, and besides the kara is a not a simple piece of jewellery. As one of the five Kakars it is central to Sikhism and a Sikh that has performed the Amrit Sanskar ceremony has to wear them at all times. They are not even symbols, but in fact articles of faith which cannot be done without. There is no comparison to a piece of jewellery.

A kara is the Sikh dagger, isn't it? School codes (not just dress codes, but actual law) forbidding weapons make that very thorny.

Wrong.

She has the choice of sticking to her principles or accepting the court ruling. If she chooses the first she is not running away from anything. I was not advocating that she should not have tried the court action, but she did and she lost. So should she now keep the school and quit using the ring, or keep the ring and quit going to that school. the choice is hers.

So she can't try to get the school to change there minds about the ring through other means? A petition, perhaps? Student protests? Why shouldn't she be able to keep trying?

God is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT, and yet cares that you wear a ring to symbolize your pledge of chastity? Surely He knows what you've done, or even thought about doing. The ring is a SHOWY declaration -- something God is supposed to forbid. The ring allows people to feel holier/purer-than-thou -- a bit prideful, isn't it? It is not specific to a religion, and was right to be banned under the school's "no bling" policy.



Wow. I've not heard something so juvenile for quite some time. You have no idea what anyone here has or hasn't done. We have the right to call it whatever we want -- it's an online forum and therefore the very cauldron of societal discussion, and yes, judgement for a segment of the world.

Just make your case without resorting to schoolyard gainsaying...if you can.


I for one have not mentioned God in any on my comments. And if you believe that what I have posted is , as you have stated, juvenile then you have a very warped sense of the word. The girl has the right to want to express her symbolism in her own way. What about jewelry that can come off? what about the people who have rings around their necks? Or Indian girls who wear the little dot? ( forgot the name of the thing). All of which would fall under this " No bling " policy

[not kidding]

Look, I got nothing against bad jokes -- but if YOU want to make jokes, you have to make them DIFFERENT from your usual posts OR make your usual posts more coherent, sensible and less full of crap. Otherwise, it's really hard to tell when you're joking.

[/not kidding]

I figured the drastic change in opinion about the ring would have been enough, but I guess not. It's not like it was a very plausible claim anyways.

Freedom of religion tends to stand higher than school dress codes, and besides the kara is a not a simple piece of jewellery. As one of the five Kakars it is central to Sikhism and a Sikh that has performed the Amrit Sanskar ceremony has to wear them at all times. They are not even symbols, but in fact articles of faith which cannot be done without. There is no comparison to a piece of jewellery.

I love how you browbeat most other religious folk but jump up in defense of the Sikh.

It's interesting that you defend the articles of their faith as "more important" than say........just about anything else having to do with the "invisible sky fairy"

A kara is the Sikh dagger, isn't it? School codes (not just dress codes, but actual law) forbidding weapons make that very thorny.

Nope Kara is the bangle. The dagger is the Kirpan. The others are the Kaacha, underwear kind of, the Kesh hair which is not ever to be cut and the Kanga or comb.

The Kirpan and Kaacha are the symbols that remind Sikhs they are warriors who will stand up for what is right.

I know this because my family are Sikhs but only Grandparents still carry all this stuff around.

A kara is the Sikh dagger, isn't it? School codes (not just dress codes, but actual law) forbidding weapons make that very thorny.

You're thinking of the kirpan, and actually, no they don't cause a problem generally, because a kirpan is usually not any sharper than a table knife and since tableware does not qualify as weapons, neither does a kirpan. In the UK, they are in fact fully legal under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19806312/?GT1=10150


Banned from a british public school under their ban of jewelry.

They argued it was a religious symbol. School said it wasn't.

the court sided with the school.


right move? wrong move? your view?

That doesn't mean what you think it means ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Public_School#Terminology

I love how you browbeat most other religious folk but jump up in defense of the Sikh.

I jump in defence against discrimination. That is also why I fully support girls' rights to wear hijabs to school, or for Jewish boys to wear a yarmulke. They are articles of faith. A ring some slack-jawed yokels in the USA came up with to start a fad of spreading their stupidity is not.

It's interesting that you defend the articles of their faith as "more important" than say........just about anything else having to do with the "invisible sky fairy"

I do not condone government discrimination. Just because I think your belief in the idiotic is, well, idiotic in itself, does not mean that I think you should be impeded in it. Ridiculed, on the other hand...

Wow. I've not heard something so juvenile for quite some time. You have no idea what anyone here has or hasn't done. We have the right to call it whatever we want -- it's an online forum and therefore the very cauldron of societal discussion, and yes, judgement for a segment of the world.

Just make your case without resorting to schoolyard gainsaying...if you can.

It's an online forum so s/he can say what they want to not just you or people you support, so don't throw that one out!

I think the comment about people not being able to wear the ring is against those who think it's a snobby statement, when it's probably just a physical reminder to inspire her to keep the vow. To which i say good on her! If the school bans it then she should probably try get another reminder of some sort or protest about it.

Nevermind the fact that alot of people who can't handle a life without sex assume that since they can't do it, no one else can or should even try.

Sueing however, is way too far i think and really won't do anything except get attention. Afterall who decides wether the ring is a part of faith?

Irrelevant, because the Sikh "kara" is one of the central symbols for the religion and baptised Sikhs have to wear them. "Purity rings" are not for Christianity - they are just a stupid fad for imbeciles.

Impressive.

A purity ring is no more a religious symbol than is a promise ring, engagement ring or wedding ring. A purity ring is a shiny, sparkly string tied around your finger to remind you to keep your legs closed until you're married. If she needs a sparkly on her finger as a constant reminder, maybe she hasn't been going to Sunday school as diligently as she ought to.

A purity ring is no more a religious symbol than is a promise ring, engagement ring or wedding ring. A purity ring is a shiny, sparkly string tied around your finger to remind you to keep your legs closed until you're married. If she needs a sparkly on her finger as a constant reminder, maybe she hasn't been going to Sunday school as diligently as she ought to.

hmmm....have you heard, in a few years time, we might all be able to drive cars, and have electricity?

I'd try modernity before spouting such tripe.

hmmm....have you heard, in a few years time, we might all be able to drive cars, and have electricity?

I'd try modernity before spouting such tripe.

What?

I for one have not mentioned God in any on my comments. And if you believe that what I have posted is , as you have stated, juvenile then you have a very warped sense of the word. The girl has the right to want to express her symbolism in her own way. What about jewelry that can come off? what about the people who have rings around their necks? Or Indian girls who wear the little dot? ( forgot the name of the thing). All of which would fall under this " No bling " policy
If it's not a symbol of their religion, they can't fucking wear it. Is that really that hard? They can't wear crucifixes and that is far more a symbol of a religion than a "purity ring" thought up by an obscure crackpot American group.

hmmm....have you heard, in a few years time, we might all be able to drive cars, and have electricity?

I'd try modernity before spouting such tripe.


You don't say!

It's my hope though, that in a few years time sarcasm will be better transmitted through the internet.

My point is, if you have to wear a ring to remind you not to whore yourself out, there's something wrong with you. Wearing it just to say "OMG, look, I'm still a virgin!" is just as bad. Now, seeing as she's trying to pass it off as a religious symbol, I'm guessing she's in some sort of *instert religion of your choice* youth group that's promoting abstinence. Going back to the start of this speel, if she has to wear a ring to remind herself not to whore herself out, then she's obviously not absorbing enough of the teachings of her religion. Are we following now?

Takes all the fun out of it when you have to explain it...

hmmm....have you heard, in a few years time, we might all be able to drive cars, and have electricity?

I'd try modernity before spouting such tripe.
Modernity? He isn't the one saying she should wear a ring to show that she is still a virgin. Will no one marry her if she takes it off because that would signify she isn't a virgin any more? Maybe she won't get her dowry.

If it's not a symbol of their religion, they can't fucking wear it. Is that really that hard? They can't wear crucifixes and that is far more a symbol of a religion than a "purity ring" thought up by an obscure crackpot American group.

I thought the article said that they were allowed to wear crucifixes.:confused:

I thought the article said that they were allowed to wear crucifixes.:confused:

Right, misread that. And crucifixes are still only barely religious symbols. Bastardized from rosaries.

Right, misread that. And crucifixes are still only barely religious symbols. Bastardized from rosaries.

Most modern religious symbols are bastardized from something or somewhere. How 'pure' or how long does it have to be part of the 'cannon' to be 'official'? And why would someone not in that faith get to decide what is and isn't?

Not that I think the Purity Ring isn't silly, just wanting to focus the argument.

The Bible makes it very clear that a Christian is to obey the laws of the civil government. Therefore if this person were a real Christian she would obey the rules. So since she doesn't want to obey the laws, she therefore isn't a real Christian. So there is no religious symbolism.

Purity Rings are silly, and are not "Christian" jewelry. They are a symbol of virginity, not Christianity. I say good for the school in keeping that crap that some morons made up to spew their anti-sex agenda out.

My personal belief is that this girl is a backward dimwit or une imbécile heureuse to put it in more precise terms. She still should have the right to wear the ring. Who cares if she wears a putain de ring ?

Purity rings depress me. I wish I hadn't clicked on this topic.

God is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT, and yet cares that you wear a ring to symbolize your pledge of chastity? Surely He knows what you've done, or even thought about doing. The ring is a SHOWY declaration -- something God is supposed to forbid. The ring allows people to feel holier/purer-than-thou -- a bit prideful, isn't it? It is not specific to a religion, and was right to be banned under the school's "no bling" policy.

"Sin of pride, Roddie"
"I'm sorry!"
"Sin of regret"

Modernity? He isn't the one saying she should wear a ring to show that she is still a virgin. Will no one marry her if she takes it off because that would signify she isn't a virgin any more? Maybe she won't get her dowry.

You know what would be awkward? If she just randomly showed up one day without the ring.

If it's not a symbol of their religion, they can't fucking wear it. Is that really that hard? They can't wear crucifixes and that is far more a symbol of a religion than a "purity ring" thought up by an obscure crackpot American group.

Right, misread that. And crucifixes are still only barely religious symbols. Bastardized from rosaries.

So which is it? A religious symbol, or only barely religious?

So which is it? A religious symbol, or only barely religious?

He's saying that crucifixes are barely religious symbols, and yet are still far more of a religous symbol than purity rings.

So which is it? A religious symbol, or only barely religious?
Congratulations, you win the "remove something from its context" award.

I for one have not mentioned God in any on my comments. And if you believe that what I have posted is , as you have stated, juvenile then you have a very warped sense of the word. The girl has the right to want to express her symbolism in her own way. What about jewelry that can come off? what about the people who have rings around their necks? Or Indian girls who wear the little dot? ( forgot the name of the thing). All of which would fall under this " No bling " policy

Look, the policy is NO JEWELRY. So the ring on the necklace? No. The girl can express her virginity by -- wait for it -- remaining a virgin! Proclaiming your chastity with jewelry is NOT in any religious text I've ever read. Please feel free to quote me chapter and verse if you feel I'm wrong.

The "little dot" isn't jewelry, it's applied to the skin, akin to makeup, and would not fall under the pollicy.

Nice try though.

purity rings sound like something a silver mining company thought up

Well your ignoring that the girl herself 'admits' it's a sign of her religion, so it's obviously a religious symbol then isn't it.

“I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage,”

That seems pretty clear to me, it's a religious symbol. I agree with this decision strongly, religion these days is becoming inseparable from politics, (see: Middle East and elsewhere) so to ensure consensus democracy secularism must be government enforced, there is no other way. Christianity has proved itself to be a political religion, just as Islam has proved also, religion must be kept as a personal belief, once you go down the path of wanting to spread your religion and that everyone else must have it, the spiritual content is replaced with political ideology.

The West was formed on secularism and it must be maintained. This girl obviously had this ring to take some kind of 'moral superiority' to show it to people that she somehow was better because of her beliefs and that those who didn't agree with her are less. Britain must stay the course or just like America they will be the Islamic Republic of Christian Republic.

Purity ring is not a god damn religious symbol. It's a stick up your ass symbol. Not the same.

It's worse--it's symbolic pedophilia. It's a father's way of telling his daughter "your pussy belongs to me, and it will until you get married, and then it belongs to him."

It's worse--it's symbolic pedophilia. It's a father's way of telling his daughter "your pussy belongs to me, and it will until you get married, and then it belongs to him."

The way you just described it, sounds more like symbolic pimping than pedophilia. "Your pussy's mine until he pays for it, then it's his."

Notice that the only people who wear promise rings or purity rings are always attractive by western WASP standards?

Ugly people don't wear purity rings, because then it just becomes a reminder of how much nobody wants them.

Notice that the only people who wear promise rings or purity rings are always attractive by western WASP standards?

Ugly people don't wear purity rings, because then it just becomes a reminder of how much nobody wants them.

What is a WASP?

The way you just described it, sounds more like symbolic pimping than pedophilia. "Your pussy's mine until he pays for it, then it's his."

The idea of ownership includes the right to do with it as he wishes, including use it. And while people no doubt will jump on me for saying that, I hope the realize I used the word "symbolic" deliberately. I'm not saying that every dad who gives his daughter secretly wants to diddle her--just that the imagery is certainly present.

What is a WASP?

White Anglo Saxon Protestant I believe.

What is a WASP?
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

or a shitty rock band from the 80s.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070717/070717_playfoot_vmed_9a.widec.jpg
I'd Hit it.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070717/070717_playfoot_vmed_9a.widec.jpg
I'd Hit it.

I'd have to second that.

I think I'm having a mild epiphany about the whole bleeding topic.

Why did the school even have to ban jewelry in the first place? Because some twat was overdoing it to look expesnive? Let them! Then secretly start rumors that he/she sells their crotch on the street. WATCH that bling disappear. In short, let the trend spend itself and get on with life without micromanaging every last aspect of student life. Let the sap keep her symbol, Heaven forfend that she forget it one day and wind up getting railed in the shack where they keep the high jump pit out on the track.

If it was up to me, and it really should be, all children at government funded schools would be allowed only to wear:

White unisex shirt
Grey skirt, short, trousers - either sex can wear all
Knee length grey socks
Black shoes

That's it - a black or grey thingamajig for hair if it needs to be tied back is acceptable.

No jewelry, no make up, no nothing.

If it was up to me, and it really should be, all children at government funded schools would be allowed only to wear:

White unisex shirt
Grey skirt, short, trousers - either sex can wear all
Knee length grey socks
Black shoes

That's it - a black or grey thingamajig for hair if it needs to be tied back is acceptable.

No jewelry, no make up, no nothing.

See, they tried that a while back. I saw some films from 1934, but I couldn't understand them because the dialogue, signs and captions were in German. Isn't it bad enough they're trying to teach them all to think alike?

/msg: allyourvirginityarebelongtous

See, they tried that a while back. I saw some films from 1934, but I couldn't understand them because the dialogue, signs and captions were in German. Isn't it bad enough they're trying to teach them all to think alike?

I'm not asking for people to think alike, I'm looking for a lack of divisive symbols - whether that's in the form of clothes, religious symbols or jewelry - when in government funded schools - they can do what they like in their private lives.

I'm not asking for people to think alike, I'm looking for a lack of divisive symbols - whether that's in the form of clothes, religious symbols or jewelry - when in government funded schools - they can do what they like in their private lives.

It just doesn't work.

I'd have to second that.

The children would be damn ugly, that's for sure.

It just doesn't work.

I find school uniforms rather sexy. Also, I think women look better without makeup.

The children would be damn ugly, that's for sure.

Crap, I forgot sex produces that.

I'd have to second that.
I'm going to have to third that...

I wish I was the person who thought up the virginity ring. I bet he's rolling around on millions and millions of $1 bills right now just laughing his ass off.

It just doesn't work.

Link (http://muse.widener.edu/~egrozyck/EDControversy/Eppinger.html)

I think the jury's out on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of school uniforms but for me, it's about ending the debate, especially in regard to religion.

However, and damn you for making me have to think about this, I'm wondering about disability and vegetarianism. One would agree that a school should offer facilities for disability certainly. I can see the argument for providing vegetarian alternatives even though some vegetarianism is on principle alone - I absolutely agree if on medical grounds.

My point is only for government-funded schools, as I truly believe government should be utterly separated from religion but then under my ruling, the government would have to pay for clothing as buying clothes is a private concern.

So, if parents are to buy, then I have to allow any form of said clothing.

Yet, under the vegetarianism/disability ruling, I'm almost forced to allow religious artifacts albeit under 'principle' and not under 'religion'.

However, I'm undecided now on this issue, although I baulk against religious symbols in school, it is a form of principle, in the same category as vegetarianism.

Purity ring = dumb. Basic mathematical principle. If you're a virgin, you know it because it's pretty hard to forget about a willing moment of sexual congress. It's a way to sell jewelry to gullible people. One thing is wearing a recognized symbol of faith (which might be mandatory...) another one is symbolizing something just so you can get a superior cookie.

For guaraunteed virginity, you should wear reinforced silver underwear under lock and key and keep the key in a safe-deposit box you'll only be able to access once you're married. Not a silver ring, which offers as much virginal protection as oxygen.

Honestly. get a crucifix like any normal Christian (and yes, Christian and normal, are, IN MY OPINION, mutually exclusive) and wear it produly. Look down on the jewish kids for their funny hats, and so forth. Y'know.

I got photographed by the paparazzi because of this girl, which was somewhat unexpected. :p

I'm going to have to third that...
Fourthed.

Though I find the idea of a purity vow/ring/commitment worrying. Britney Spears had one, so that doesn't bode well.

In short: stay away from people with purity rings.

It's up to the individual to decide what a given object means to their beliefs, surely? If Sikhs can carry goddammed daggers around, it is totally absurd that the ring should have been prohibited. Sikhs "need" daggers to be Sikhs, but since you don't "need" a crucifix, purity ring or whatever if you're Christian you can fuck off? What?

The school has a clear dress code, which explicitly prohibits the use of jewelry (for good reasons).

Ah, "good reasons". And those were...?

It's up to the individual to decide what a given object means to their beliefs, surely? If Sikhs can carry goddammed daggers around, it is totally absurd that the ring should have been prohibited. Sikhs "need" daggers to be Sikhs, but since you don't "need" a crucifix, purity ring or whatever if you're Christian you can fuck off? What?



Ah, "good reasons". And those were...?
You can probably find good answers to both of those questions in five pages of thread.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070717/070717_playfoot_vmed_9a.widec.jpg
I'd Hit it.

Maybe so. There are others, some of which need not wear the ring.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playfootST2206_468x417.jpg
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playfootST2206_468x417.jpg)

Well your ignoring that the girl herself 'admits' it's a sign of her religion, so it's obviously a religious symbol then isn't it.
No. No more than if I said "I am a Muslim, this means that I'm allowed to hit you with a shoe on a Tuesday."

It's not actually in any article of the faith, whatsoever. So it isn't a religious symbol.

I think I'm having a mild epiphany about the whole bleeding topic.

Why did the school even have to ban jewelry in the first place? Because some twat was overdoing it to look expesnive? Let them! Then secretly start rumors that he/she sells their crotch on the street. WATCH that bling disappear. In short, let the trend spend itself and get on with life without micromanaging every last aspect of student life. Let the sap keep her symbol, Heaven forfend that she forget it one day and wind up getting railed in the shack where they keep the high jump pit out on the track.

1. Jewelry can be a safety hazard.

2. Teachers are over-worked as it is; they don't want to spend time dealing with angry parents every time a girl loses her expensive necklace or gets her ring stolen.

Ok, it seems most of the people on this thread are missing the point.

This lawsuit is not about religious freedom, it's about making money. Her mother is company secretary for Silver Ring Thing, and her father is Parents Programme Director of Silver Ring Thing in the UK. They both work with Andy Robinson who is Managing Director of, you guessed it, Silver Ring Thing (UK). Andy's wife is UK programme director of SRT. Examining the document properties of the press releases on "Lydia's" website shows that they were written by Andy, and "her" website is registered to the same IP address as Andy's, coincidence? Lydia's left school by now, so the only purpose of this lawsuit is to give her parents the chance to have the wearing of their product classed as a human right.

Oh, and no action was taken by the school when she started wearing the ring; the suggestion is that the ban was put in place after she started pressuring other girls into wearing them.

Ok, everybody move along, nothing to see here...

Information taken from Ministry of Truth Blog (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/)

I find school uniforms rather sexy. Also, I think women look better without makeup.

I'm glad someone else thinks make-up on women is evil.

1. Jewelry can be a safety hazard.

2. Teachers are over-worked as it is; they don't want to spend time dealing with angry parents every time a girl loses her expensive necklace or gets her ring stolen.

1 - Yes it can be.

2 - Theft is easy when the student isn't around, especially during phys-ed. The school has enough problems without having to deal with students stealing shit from each other...

it's not irrelevant. Should only the religious have rights in these situations? Should one class be held higher than another, either you can wear jewelry or you can't.

If jewelry is banned, then it's banned.

The Sikh Kara is not jewerly. However it is an article of faith that no Sikh can disgard. Guru Ji has given us 5 such articles that we are supposed never to be without.

A ring is jewerly and in addition, this purity ring is not an article of the Christian faith. It is very, very simple. The courts made the right desicion, the case did not have a chance. However perhaps more horrifing are the comments from her solicitor afterwords where he said:

'Secular authorities cannot rule on religious truth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6900512.stm

Nope Kara is the bangle. The dagger is the Kirpan. The others are the Kaacha, underwear kind of, the Kesh hair which is not ever to be cut and the Kanga or comb.

The Kirpan and Kaacha are the symbols that remind Sikhs they are warriors who will stand up for what is right.

I know this because my family are Sikhs but only Grandparents still carry all this stuff around.

That is certianly one interpretation of it. However most Sikhs I know keep the 5 k's for one simple reason. Guru ji tells us that we should.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

or a shitty rock band from the 80s.

Oi Oi I resent that WASP were a classic slice of 80's rock!:eek:

Ok, it seems most of the people on this thread are missing the point.

This lawsuit is not about religious freedom, it's about making money. Her mother is company secretary for Silver Ring Thing, and her father is Parents Programme Director of Silver Ring Thing in the UK. They both work with Andy Robinson who is Managing Director of, you guessed it, Silver Ring Thing (UK). Andy's wife is UK programme director of SRT. Examining the document properties of the press releases on "Lydia's" website shows that they were written by Andy, and "her" website is registered to the same IP address as Andy's, coincidence? Lydia's left school by now, so the only purpose of this lawsuit is to give her parents the chance to have the wearing of their product classed as a human right.

Oh, and no action was taken by the school when she started wearing the ring; the suggestion is that the ban was put in place after she started pressuring other girls into wearing them.

Ok, everybody move along, nothing to see here...

Information taken from Ministry of Truth Blog (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/)

Exactly. You also have to worry about what kind of parents would use their child in this way - the girl herself has now left the school. The whole Silver Ring Thing is also counter productive because it has the effect of reducing contraceptive use.

Exactly. You also have to worry about what kind of parents would use their child in this way - the girl herself has now left the school. The whole Silver Ring Thing is also counter productive because it has the effect of reducing contraceptive use.
That is the final product of the entire "abstinence only" education directive.

it's not irrelevant. Should only the religious have rights in these situations? Should one class be held higher than another, either you can wear jewelry or you can't.

If jewelry is banned, then it's banned.

You're a very silly person, Smunk.

It's an online forum so s/he can say what they want to not just you or people you support, so don't throw that one out!

I think the comment about people not being able to wear the ring is against those who think it's a snobby statement, when it's probably just a physical reminder to inspire her to keep the vow. To which i say good on her! If the school bans it then she should probably try get another reminder of some sort or protest about it.

Nevermind the fact that alot of people who can't handle a life without sex assume that since they can't do it, no one else can or should even try.

Sueing however, is way too far i think and really won't do anything except get attention. Afterall who decides wether the ring is a part of faith?

The religion gets to decide if it's a part of the faith. As many have said before: If she needs a reminder to not fuck someone, she's not mentally a virgin, and to wear the ring is just to brag that she hasn't had her vagina entered by a penis yet, though it says nothing about sucking somoene off or letting them screw you in the ear.

My personal belief is that this girl is a backward dimwit or une imbécile heureuse to put it in more precise terms. She still should have the right to wear the ring. Who cares if she wears a putain de ring ?

The school does. It's their right to care, and to enforce the rules.

I think I'm having a mild epiphany about the whole bleeding topic.

Why did the school even have to ban jewelry in the first place? Because some twat was overdoing it to look expesnive? Let them! Then secretly start rumors that he/she sells their crotch on the street. WATCH that bling disappear. In short, let the trend spend itself and get on with life without micromanaging every last aspect of student life. Let the sap keep her symbol, Heaven forfend that she forget it one day and wind up getting railed in the shack where they keep the high jump pit out on the track.

Or they could just ban it. Much simpler.

I'm not asking for people to think alike, I'm looking for a lack of divisive symbols - whether that's in the form of clothes, religious symbols or jewelry - when in government funded schools - they can do what they like in their private lives.

Divisive symbols? You think being different keeps people apart, and divides us?

You're a very silly person.

Ok, it seems most of the people on this thread are missing the point.

This lawsuit is not about religious freedom, it's about making money. Her mother is company secretary for Silver Ring Thing, and her father is Parents Programme Director of Silver Ring Thing in the UK. They both work with Andy Robinson who is Managing Director of, you guessed it, Silver Ring Thing (UK). Andy's wife is UK programme director of SRT. Examining the document properties of the press releases on "Lydia's" website shows that they were written by Andy, and "her" website is registered to the same IP address as Andy's, coincidence? Lydia's left school by now, so the only purpose of this lawsuit is to give her parents the chance to have the wearing of their product classed as a human right.

Oh, and no action was taken by the school when she started wearing the ring; the suggestion is that the ban was put in place after she started pressuring other girls into wearing them.

Ok, everybody move along, nothing to see here...

Information taken from Ministry of Truth Blog (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/)

Holy shit, end of thread. FUCKING OWNED.

Everything else is IRRELEVANT. This whole thread just got fucking owned by RLI. This bitch got wiped the fuck out.

GG, RLI. GG.

Exactly. You also have to worry about what kind of parents would use their child in this way - the girl herself has now left the school. The whole Silver Ring Thing is also counter productive because it has the effect of reducing contraceptive use.

And telling kids that BJ's don't count! Maybe Clinton had a ring like this when he was in office. =)

And is it just me or does the picture of that girl just scream "I give blowjobs."

You think being different keeps people apart, and divides us?

Ammm....you think it doesn't?

And is it just me or does the picture of that girl just scream "I give blowjobs."

No, I think that's the ring.

Ammm....you think it doesn't?

I'm sure it doesn't. It's our individuality that lets us enjoy eachother's company - I have friends that wear Abercrombie (though I've smacked them for it), I have friends that wear torn jeans and have longass hair - GUYS - I have friends that have piercings in their nose/ear/lip/tongue/eyebrow, and none of these differences separate or divide us. I'm glad I have such a diverse range of people around me. The last thing any of that would do is keep me from being someone's friend.

On the other hand, if all my friends wear the same thing, take no actual pride in what they wear or how they express themselves, then that might divide us. I hate fashion, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about people feeling the most like themselves and therefore the most natural and amiable when they're unrestricted in how they look and act.

Maybe so. There are others, some of which need not wear the ring.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playfootST2206_468x417.jpg
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/playfootST2206_468x417.jpg)

I'm looking at you, top center.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19806312/?GT1=10150


Banned from a british public school under their ban of jewelry.

They argued it was a religious symbol. School said it wasn't.

the court sided with the school.


right move? wrong move? your view?

Purity rings are not a religious symbol. They are more of a physical object to remind the person ofa commitment that they have made with themselves. I do not see the big deal.

Many complex issues such as this one can be solved with a simple algorithm.

new boolean religSymbol = false;
new boolean jewelry = true;

if (jewelry = true && religSymbol = false && numChristians/numBritish < .5)
{

expel(Lydia_Playfoot);

}

I think I got the syntax right for Java, but it's been a while;

Many complex issues such as this one can be solved with a simple algorithm.

new boolean religSymbol = false;
new boolean jewelry = true;

if (jewelry = true && religSymbol = false && numChristians/numBritish < .5)
{

expel(Lydia_Playfoot);

}

I think I got the syntax right for Java, but it's been a while;

Oi who let the nerd in?:D

that was me, so sorry:D

I let myself in, thank you very much. Why don't you have a ninja emoticon?

I let myself in, thank you very much. Why don't you have a ninja emoticon?

Heh too nerdy?

http://www.ipodwizard.net/images/smilies/ninja.gif

No, I think that's the ring.



I'm sure it doesn't. It's our individuality that lets us enjoy eachother's company - I have friends that wear Abercrombie (though I've smacked them for it), I have friends that wear torn jeans and have longass hair - GUYS - I have friends that have piercings in their nose/ear/lip/tongue/eyebrow, and none of these differences separate or divide us. I'm glad I have such a diverse range of people around me. The last thing any of that would do is keep me from being someone's friend.

On the other hand, if all my friends wear the same thing, take no actual pride in what they wear or how they express themselves, then that might divide us. I hate fashion, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about people feeling the most like themselves and therefore the most natural and amiable when they're unrestricted in how they look and act.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were basing this on your own saintly attitude to difference as opposed to understanding the powerful role symbols take in uniting people under a banner - both to identify themselves as part of a group as well as to discern those who are not part of a group.

From flags to crucifixes to badges to boy band posters, visual symbols both bring people together under a cause, such as the AIDS red ribbon, as well as divide people under a belief, such as the yellow star.

Marketers use symbology to create brands, products that say something about who you are - to the extent that those who decry brands themselves are still identifying themselves as part of a group, and dividing themselves from others, those they see as beholden to brand, ultimately, those inferior in thought to themselves. To say this doesn't affect us is naive at best.

I'm not saying individuality should be be discouraged, if anything I am strongly for individuality, which is why I would rather not have symbols used to mark us out as distinct.

Think of this very message board, how much do you know of people other than what they write, what they believe, knowledge divorced from how they look, what they wear and the cult they choose to follow, whether that's political belief, musical genre or length of hair. I might not agree with R.O. but I do see that he is often attacked for what people think he is - a caricature of the right - rather than what he actually writes per post.

We define ourselves through cues and form easy opinions, opinions that can belie who we actually are, because we feel we have to act a certain way, speak a certain opinion, to fit in or fit out of any other group.

Sorry if this seems a rant but to think that people don't see differences and act blindly as result and how divisive that can be is thinking with eyes closed.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070717/070717_playfoot_vmed_9a.widec.jpg
I'd Hit it.

I knew I wouldn't be the only one to think so.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were basing this on your own saintly attitude to difference as opposed to understanding the powerful role symbols take in uniting people under a banner - both to identify themselves as part of a group as well as to discern those who are not part of a group.

From flags to crucifixes to badges to boy band posters, visual symbols both bring people together under a cause, such as the AIDS red ribbon, as well as divide people under a belief, such as the yellow star.

Marketers use symbology to create brands, products that say something about who you are - to the extent that those who decry brands themselves are still identifying themselves as part of a group, and dividing themselves from others, those they see as beholden to brand, ultimately, those inferior in thought to themselves. To say this doesn't affect us is naive at best.

I'm not saying individuality should be be discouraged, if anything I am strongly for individuality, which is why I would rather not have symbols used to mark us out as distinct.

Think of this very message board, how much do you know of people other than what they write, what they believe, knowledge divorced from how they look, what they wear and the cult they choose to follow, whether that's political belief, musical genre or length of hair. I might not agree with R.O. but I do see that he is often attacked for what people think he is - a caricature of the right - rather than what he actually writes per post.

We define ourselves through cues and form easy opinions, opinions that can belie who we actually are, because we feel we have to act a certain way, speak a certain opinion, to fit in or fit out of any other group.

Sorry if this seems a rant but to think that people don't see differences and act blindly as result and how divisive that can be is thinking with eyes closed.

You're right, sometimes people divide amongst themselves according to how they look - in fact, it happens all the time, but really all that look does is show physically how they are socially - the cliques still form, but not based on physical appearance.

You're acting like taking out the difference in clothes will keep people from wanting to hang out with people who are like them and not so much with people who aren't. Cliques happen. Just because they're not wearing pink abercrombie shirts with white jean skirts doesn't mean they won't realize they are alike with some people and different with others.


My point is, it's not the clothes that separate, it's the actions. The actions remain, even if the clothes are out of the equation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19806312/?GT1=10150


Banned from a british public school under their ban of jewelry.

They argued it was a religious symbol. School said it wasn't.

the court sided with the school.


right move? wrong move? your view?
1) No, it's not.
2) Even if it were, still shouldn't receive special treatment. If jewelry is against the rules, ALL jewelry should be against the rules. Claiming that you believe an invisible man in the sky gives a shit about your accessories is not a compelling argument.

fundie bitch got what she deserved

fundie bitch got what she deserved

Welcome to NS :rolleyes:

1) No, it's not.
2) Even if it were, still shouldn't receive special treatment. If jewelry is against the rules, ALL jewelry should be against the rules. Claiming that you believe an invisible man in the sky gives a shit about your accessories is not a compelling argument.

:D

1) No, it's not.
2) Even if it were, still shouldn't receive special treatment. If jewelry is against the rules, ALL jewelry should be against the rules. Claiming that you believe an invisible man in the sky gives a shit about your accessories is not a compelling argument.

You're entirely right on principle, and I disagree with uniforms in general, but in this specific case she was in the wrong regardless of the rule against jewelry.

Hm...this is a hard one. A purity ring isn't a symbol of any particular religion in particular. However, it is an outward sign of one's moral ideals. The closest thing I can liken it to is this:

Should anyone have the right to demand that one remove his or her ashes on Ash Wednesday?

Ashes aren't a sign of the faith itself, yet they are an outward sign of one's penance. Granted, it isn't a ring, and therefore not jewelry.

I suppose the chief question I'd have is this: why are rings prohibited in general?

Hm...this is a hard one. A purity ring isn't a symbol of any particular religion in particular. However, it is an outward sign of one's moral ideals. The closest thing I can liken it to is this:

Should anyone have the right to demand that one remove his or her ashes on Ash Wednesday?

Ashes aren't a sign of the faith itself, yet they are an outward sign of one's penance. Granted, it isn't a ring, and therefore not jewelry.

I suppose the chief question I'd have is this: why are rings prohibited in general?

Because of the dress code.

Because of the dress code.

I figured that one out myself, Einstein. Any particular reason that jewelry are banned according to that dress code?

I figured that one out myself, Einstein. Any particular reason that jewelry are banned according to that dress code?

Because otherwise it isn't really a uniform? Uni, one - one form. One set of clothes, one style.

Because otherwise it isn't really a uniform? Uni, one - one form. One set of clothes, one style.

Since when is jewelry clothing?

Since when is jewelry clothing?

A uniform isn't restricted to clothing. Some uniforms go as far as dictating what type of hairstyle is allowed.

A uniform isn't restricted to clothing. Some uniforms go as far as dictating what type of hairstyle is allowed.

But you said "one sort of clothes." Jewelry isn't clothing. If I walk out of my house buttnaked except for a ring, I'm pretty sure that I'm still gonna be arrested for being naked in public.

Uniforms, from what I understand, generally only proscribe the clothing worn. Granted, there are generally restrictions on jewelry, but only when it becomes extraneous.

For example, when I was in high school (in an American school) there was a uniform policy. However, jewelry was still allowed, including ear rings, assuming that the ear rings were under a certain size, the rings weren't too flashy, etc.

But you said "one sort of clothes." Jewelry isn't clothing. If I walk out of my house buttnaked except for a ring, I'm pretty sure that I'm still gonna be arrested for being naked in public.

Uniforms, from what I understand, generally only proscribe the clothing worn. Granted, there are generally restrictions on jewelry, but only when it becomes extraneous.

For example, when I was in high school (in an American school) there was a uniform policy. However, jewelry was still allowed, including ear rings, assuming that the ear rings were under a certain size, the rings weren't too flashy, etc.

Uniform accessories and uniform clothing can all be part of a school uniform

I also said "one style" in that very same post.

Uniforms can dictate any number of things about your appearance. No makeup, certain hairstyles, no jewelry. I realize your experience with them was one way, but in this situation it extended it to jewelry as well.

Awesome. Is there any particular reason that it extended to jewelry? I seriously doubt that they said "No jewelry at all" just because they felt like it. What's the rationality?

But you said "one sort of clothes." Jewelry isn't clothing. If I walk out of my house buttnaked except for a ring, I'm pretty sure that I'm still gonna be arrested for being naked in public.

Uniforms, from what I understand, generally only proscribe the clothing worn. Granted, there are generally restrictions on jewelry, but only when it becomes extraneous.

For example, when I was in high school (in an American school) there was a uniform policy. However, jewelry was still allowed, including ear rings, assuming that the ear rings were under a certain size, the rings weren't too flashy, etc.

I also said "one style" in that very same post.

Uniforms can dictate any number of things about your appearance. No makeup, certain hairstyles, no jewelry. I realize your experience with them was one way, but in this situation it extended it to jewelry as well.

Awesome. Is there any particular reason that it extended to jewelry? I seriously doubt that they said "No jewelry at all" just because they felt like it. What's the rationality?
So people weren't showing off their kit and trying to get one up on each other for it. The same reason a uniform exists. Duh.

Awesome. Is there any particular reason that it extended to jewelry? I seriously doubt that they said "No jewelry at all" just because they felt like it. What's the rationality?

I dunno, I don't go to the school. I'm assuming they just prefer a higher level of uniform. They don't have to have some almighty reason for it.

So people weren't showing off their kit and trying to get one up on each other for it. The same reason a uniform exists. Duh.

Exactly. That's what I was getting to. I fail to see how a purity ring can be construed as "trying to get up" on anyone. Thank you for presenting my argument for me. Good evening all; I gotta go to work.

Oddly enough, I am having dinner with a girl tonight. Wish me luck!

Exactly. That's what I was getting to. I fail to see how a purity ring can be construed as "trying to get up" on anyone. Thank you for presenting my argument for me. Good evening all; I gotta go to work.

Oddly enough, I am having dinner with a girl tonight. Wish me luck!

You don't see "I'm less of a slut than you because of this ring" as a means of "trying to get up" on anyone?

Exactly. That's what I was getting to. I fail to see how a purity ring can be construed as "trying to get up" on anyone. Thank you for presenting my argument for me. Good evening all; I gotta go to work.

Oddly enough, I am having dinner with a girl tonight. Wish me luck!
What the fuck are you the beginning of on about?

It's basically a 'holier than thou' symbol.

You don't see "I'm less of a slut than you because of this ring" as a means of "trying to get up" on anyone?

"Oh yeah? I'm wearing TWO purity rings!"

"Oh yeah? Mine is pure silver taken from the 9/11 site!"

"Oh yeah? Mine have a quote inscribed on the inside that stipulates that I won't have oral sex, either!"

"... Damn."

"I know. It sucks."

"Oh yeah? I'm wearing TWO purity rings!"

"Oh yeah? Mine is pure silver taken from the 9/11 site!"

"Oh yeah? Mine have a quote inscribed on the inside that stipulates that I won't have oral sex, either!"

"... Damn."

"I know. It sucks."

You mean she doesn't ;)

"Oh yeah? I'm wearing TWO purity rings!"

"Oh yeah? Mine is pure silver taken from the 9/11 site!"

"Oh yeah? Mine have a quote inscribed on the inside that stipulates that I won't have oral sex, either!"

"... Damn."

"I know. It sucks."

It doesn't say anything about receiving. . . .

What? Some guys are nice.

It doesn't say anything about receiving. . . .

What? Some guys are nice.

Well, purity is pretty absolute. Either you're pure or you're not, giving or receiving-wise.

Well, purity is pretty absolute. Either you're pure or you're not, giving or receiving-wise.

Present Ted: "What number are we thinking of?"
Future Bill and Ted: "69 dude!"
Present Bill and Ted "Whoa!"

I'm looking at you, top center.

and you, bottom right.

Exactly. That's what I was getting to. I fail to see how a purity ring can be construed as "trying to get up" on anyone. Thank you for presenting my argument for me. Good evening all; I gotta go to work.

Oddly enough, I am having dinner with a girl tonight. Wish me luck!

If she isn't wearing any sort of ring, ask her if she's a virgin. If she is wearing a ring... ask the same thing or, alternatively, if she's married. Or you can ask both. Some married women are virgins. Very few, but some...

If it was up to me, and it really should be, all children at government funded schools would be allowed only to wear:

White unisex shirt
Grey skirt, short, trousers - either sex can wear all
Knee length grey socks
Black shoes

That's it - a black or grey thingamajig for hair if it needs to be tied back is acceptable.

No jewelry, no make up, no nothing.

School uniforms don't really help all that much. There are still plenty of ways you can show you belong to a particular group with uniforms.

I think everyone here needs to read this: Ministry of Truth: Silver-Bling-Thing (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/)

And yes, I know it was posted already, but more people do need to read it. That's why I'm reposting the link.

:eek: apparently all one needs to do to get a thread with many posts is to make one with religious subject matter.






that or people were REALLY bored...:D

:eek: apparently all one needs to do to get a thread with many posts is to make one with religious subject matter.






that or people were REALLY bored...:D

Either that or make an outrageous post that is border line trolling...

Link (http://muse.widener.edu/~egrozyck/EDControversy/Eppinger.html)

I think the jury's out on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of school uniforms but for me, it's about ending the debate, especially in regard to religion.

However, and damn you for making me have to think about this, I'm wondering about disability and vegetarianism. One would agree that a school should offer facilities for disability certainly. I can see the argument for providing vegetarian alternatives even though some vegetarianism is on principle alone - I absolutely agree if on medical grounds.

My point is only for government-funded schools, as I truly believe government should be utterly separated from religion but then under my ruling, the government would have to pay for clothing as buying clothes is a private concern.

So, if parents are to buy, then I have to allow any form of said clothing.

Yet, under the vegetarianism/disability ruling, I'm almost forced to allow religious artifacts albeit under 'principle' and not under 'religion'.

However, I'm undecided now on this issue, although I baulk against religious symbols in school, it is a form of principle, in the same category as vegetarianism.

My work here is done. Good post, btw.

Exactly. That's what I was getting to. I fail to see how a purity ring can be construed as "trying to get up" on anyone. Thank you for presenting my argument for me. Good evening all; I gotta go to work.

Oddly enough, I am having dinner with a girl tonight. Wish me luck!

Yes but if you know the 'jesus freaks' crowds at school, they will use anything to push themselves as 'morally superior', you know only hang up in the same crowd etc etc

I think everyone here needs to read this: Ministry of Truth: Silver-Bling-Thing (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/)

And yes, I know it was posted already, but more people do need to read it. That's why I'm reposting the link.

I agree, more people need to read it.

I agree, more people need to read it.

Isn't there something in the Bible about the love of money being the root of all evil? ;)

Isn't there something in the Bible about the love of money being the root of all evil? ;)

Captain Pedantic sensed something was amiss, donning his cape he took to the virtual skies, scanning the Internet for possible errors that could be corrected.

"Ah ha", he cried, "my arch-nemesis, BibleQuoteMan, and I see that yet again there's an error"

Down, down he flew, alighting on his keyboard where he rapidly typed out his statement using his magical pendantry:

The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil

Away he flew, confident in his heroic yet futile deed of adding nothing to the conversation aside from alluding to his own superiority.

End episode

Captain Pedantic sensed something was amiss, donning his cape he took to the virtual skies, scanning the Internet for possible errors that could be corrected.

"Ah ha", he cried, "my arch-nemesis, BibleQuoteMan, and I see that yet again there's an error"

Down, down he flew, alighting on his keyboard where he rapidly typed out his statement using his magical pendantry:

The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil

Away he flew, confident in his heroic yet futile deed of adding nothing to the conversation aside from alluding to his own superiority.

End episode
Depends on your translation. I've also seen it as "the love of money is the cause of all sorts of injurious things." Away with thee, Captain Pedantic!

Depends on your translation. I've also seen it as "the love of money is the cause of all sorts of injurious things." Away with thee, Captain Pedantic!

Gaaah! Captain Pedantic saw the bolt of multiple translation screaming towards him and acted quickly by conjuring up the shield of context.

Your quote specified the translation as 'root of all evil' and therefore other translations are irrelevant in this context.

"Hurrah", shouted the crowds as Captain Pedantic swooped down to kiss the intrepid female journalist who was typecast as his girl, a girl who would soon become bored with his persistent pedantry and cheat on him for being an utter dickwad.

"Hurrah", shouted the crowds as Captain Pedantic swooped down to kiss the intrepid female journalist who was typecast as his girl, a girl who would soon become bored with his persistent pedantry and cheat on him for being an utter dickwad.

"You and me are through!"
"You must have meant 'You and I are through'."
*stabs*

"You and me are through!"
"You must have meant 'You and I are through'."
*stabs*

LOL - that's exactly what would happen :)

What the fuck are you the beginning of on about?

It's basically a 'holier than thou' symbol.

That's the same thing that other people aside from you have said in the same thread. The fact of the matter, then, is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a problem with the fact that it's jewelry. You have a problem with the fact that it does in fact represent their dedication to sexual purity.

You don't have a problem with the idea that perhaps poorer children will feel bad that they can't afford that sort of jewelry. You have a problem with the idea that perhaps other people (including yourselves) disagree with the morality being espoused.

Nuff said.

That's the same thing that other people aside from you have said in the same thread. The fact of the matter, then, is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a problem with the fact that it's jewelry. You have a problem with the fact that it does in fact represent their dedication to sexual purity.

You don't have a problem with the idea that perhaps poorer children will feel bad that they can't afford that sort of jewelry. You have a problem with the idea that perhaps other people (including yourselves) disagree with the morality being espoused.

Nuff said.

Despite the threat from Captain Pedantic above, I seem to remember a parable about a Pharisee who prayed aloud on the street corner, and Jesus saying something about expressing yourself in secret, as opposed to being an obnoxious ass about it in public and trying to show just how holy you are in the eyes of everyone around you.

Captain Pedantic sensed something was amiss, donning his cape he took to the virtual skies, scanning the Internet for possible errors that could be corrected.

"Ah ha", he cried, "my arch-nemesis, BibleQuoteMan, and I see that yet again there's an error"

Down, down he flew, alighting on his keyboard where he rapidly typed out his statement using his magical pendantry:

The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil

Away he flew, confident in his heroic yet futile deed of adding nothing to the conversation aside from alluding to his own superiority.

End episode

You are my hero for today. :)

That's the same thing that other people aside from you have said in the same thread. The fact of the matter, then, is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a problem with the fact that it's jewelry. You have a problem with the fact that it does in fact represent their dedication to sexual purity.

You don't have a problem with the idea that perhaps poorer children will feel bad that they can't afford that sort of jewelry. You have a problem with the idea that perhaps other people (including yourselves) disagree with the morality being espoused.

Nuff said.

No no no - from your original post and continued questions, it's clear you didn't read this.

1. Jewelry was banned
2. The reason given was that it can be dangerous, the example given was if someone accidentally fell and put their hand out to save themselves, it might hurt someone else.
3. It was suggested that the real reason is because schools are tired of parents' complaining about their kids' jewelry being stolen when they were probably just mislaid or lost or whatever kids do with jewelry.

Regardless...

The case, which was brought to court by the makers and distributors of the rings who, coincidentally, were the parents of the girl, was whether the rings were allowed as an article of faith under human rights.

The court, rightly, said 'avast with thee' though wrongly, did not follow up by making them walk the plank, instead choosing to make them to pay legal fees.

There's a wider issue of whether the girl was canvassing for others to wear the ring, essentially to line the pockets of her parents, who were selling the rings and related paraphernalia such as t-shirts, caps and etc., at $20 a pop.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19806312/?GT1=10150


Banned from a british public school under their ban of jewelry.

They argued it was a religious symbol. School said it wasn't.

the court sided with the school.


right move? wrong move? your view?I have a purity c*ck ring.
Obviously, it serves its purpose best in the right setting for it to be seen. Gym class.

It's got a cool little insignia on it (an invocation used in exorcism) and some rhinestones, a little purple and gold for true regal colouring.

I have another that has a cool tribal design on it, and some insignia mention of Cthulu. It's got some garnet and emerald stone inlay. I only swap out on Wednesday nights, Sundays and occasionally Saturdays.

This girl has the right to freedom of expression. God, what harm can a ring do anyway?! Even if it's just for decoration, I say let her keep the ring and tell the school to drag itself into the 21st Century!

Despite the threat from Captain Pedantic above, I seem to remember a parable about a Pharisee who prayed aloud on the street corner, and Jesus saying something about expressing yourself in secret, as opposed to being an obnoxious ass about it in public and trying to show just how holy you are in the eyes of everyone around you.

Shh...

The Conservative Christians just love to spout how well only they follow the bible, however what they don't tell you is that they only follow the parts they want.

That part, of course, is not one of those parts.

2. The reason given was that it can be dangerous, the example given was if someone accidentally fell and put their hand out to save themselves, it might hurt someone else.


Lolz.

'Lets give the kids IV's instead of food for lunch, they might choke.'

"You and me are through!"
"You must have meant 'You and I are through'."
*stabs*

Aha! Not unless she meant "you and me" as a singular construct, referring to their relationship. Oh no -- wait! That means the verb would have to change to the singular conjugation "is" -- oh noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

KA-CHOW!

Yes. The Grenade of Self-Righteous Correction had blown up in his face.

That's the same thing that other people aside from you have said in the same thread. The fact of the matter, then, is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a problem with the fact that it's jewelry. You have a problem with the fact that it does in fact represent their dedication to sexual purity.

You don't have a problem with the idea that perhaps poorer children will feel bad that they can't afford that sort of jewelry. You have a problem with the idea that perhaps other people (including yourselves) disagree with the morality being espoused.

Nuff said.

The school's dress code forbids non-religion-specific (crosses, e.g.) jewelry. The reasons why are probably in the article, which has been linked several times. Not reading the links doesn't make you right.

I have a problem with ostentatious displays of conspicuous consumption in schools as a distraction and attempted social leverage. So does God.

Look, here's a lateral solution for the Church of the Silver Ring Thing, or whatever they're called:

The ring should be worn where it cannot be seen.
The labia. Both of 'em.

Boy: Hey, nice piercing! Uh ... how do you get it off ?
Girl: You don't. But ... I'm not wearing ear-rings ...?

And any teacher who even knows about it goes straight to jail.

Look, here's a lateral solution for the Church of the Silver Ring Thing, or whatever they're called:

The ring should be worn where it cannot be seen.
The labia. Both of 'em.

Boy: Hey, nice piercing! Uh ... how do you get it off ?
Girl: You don't.

And any teacher who even knows about it goes straight to jail.

Not bad!

Just to show I'm not just here for the jokes, I'll rip someone a new one.

Hmm, let's see. This poster offended me elsewhere, so they'll do:

it's not irrelevant. Should only the religious have rights in these situations? Should one class be held higher than another, either you can wear jewelry or you can't.

If jewelry is banned, then it's banned.

You're a very silly person, Smunk.

Is that an answer ?

It is not. Here, like this:

There are real religions, which are old.
Then there are cults, which are new.

Religions have a right to their religious symbols, cults do not.

(I don't believe that, but it's at least an answer.)

It's an online forum so s/he can say what they want to not just you or people you support, so don't throw that one out!

I think the comment about people not being able to wear the ring is against those who think it's a snobby statement, when it's probably just a physical reminder to inspire her to keep the vow. To which i say good on her! If the school bans it then she should probably try get another reminder of some sort or protest about it.

Nevermind the fact that alot of people who can't handle a life without sex assume that since they can't do it, no one else can or should even try.

Sueing however, is way too far i think and really won't do anything except get attention. Afterall who decides wether the ring is a part of faith?

The religion gets to decide if it's a part of the faith. As many have said before: If she needs a reminder to not fuck someone, she's not mentally a virgin, and to wear the ring is just to brag that she hasn't had her vagina entered by a penis yet, though it says nothing about sucking somoene off or letting them screw you in the ear.

And if a Sikh needs a kitchen knife to remind him to defend justice, they must be unjust already.

(No, I don't believe that. It is a logical corollary if The Silver Ring Thing is considered a religion)

Look, if the entirety of her religious belief was "I must not let guys have straight sex with me" then the ring would be a symbol of faith.

After that you take it right downtown, so I'll ignore that.

My personal belief is that this girl is a backward dimwit or une imbécile heureuse to put it in more precise terms. She still should have the right to wear the ring. Who cares if she wears a putain de ring ?
The school does. It's their right to care, and to enforce the rules.

It is the obligation of the school to care. Don't get confused now.

So now we're getting a sense of your case. "The school has a rule, so the school is right in however it interprets the rule."

I think I'm having a mild epiphany about the whole bleeding topic.

Why did the school even have to ban jewelry in the first place? Because some twat was overdoing it to look expesnive? Let them! Then secretly start rumors that he/she sells their crotch on the street. WATCH that bling disappear. In short, let the trend spend itself and get on with life without micromanaging every last aspect of student life. Let the sap keep her symbol, Heaven forfend that she forget it one day and wind up getting railed in the shack where they keep the high jump pit out on the track.
Or they could just ban it. Much simpler.

Simpler, in the way Joe DiMaggio was simpler than Albert Einstein.
You think being able to hit things makes you a debater ? Pfshaw !

I don't agree with Intagleon, but I at least acknowledge that he thought about it.

A pattern is emerging. You can use the multi-quote. You know a good post when you see it. There is hope for you.

I'm not asking for people to think alike, I'm looking for a lack of divisive symbols - whether that's in the form of clothes, religious symbols or jewelry - when in government funded schools - they can do what they like in their private lives.
Divisive symbols? You think being different keeps people apart, and divides us?

You're a very silly person.

The wit of saying "very silly person" instead of "idiot" rather evaporates when you use it twice.

I think the point was "we can't make rules to make people like each other or disregard real differences, but we can make rules to stop them visibly setting themselves apart in a public school."


Ok, it seems most of the people on this thread are missing the point.

This lawsuit is not about religious freedom, it's about making money. Her mother is company secretary for Silver Ring Thing, and her father is Parents Programme Director of Silver Ring Thing in the UK. They both work with Andy Robinson who is Managing Director of, you guessed it, Silver Ring Thing (UK). Andy's wife is UK programme director of SRT. Examining the document properties of the press releases on "Lydia's" website shows that they were written by Andy, and "her" website is registered to the same IP address as Andy's, coincidence? Lydia's left school by now, so the only purpose of this lawsuit is to give her parents the chance to have the wearing of their product classed as a human right.

Oh, and no action was taken by the school when she started wearing the ring; the suggestion is that the ban was put in place after she started pressuring other girls into wearing them.

Ok, everybody move along, nothing to see here...

Information taken from Ministry of Truth Blog (http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/06/25/silver-bling-thing/)
Holy shit, end of thread. FUCKING OWNED.

Everything else is IRRELEVANT. This whole thread just got fucking owned by RLI. This bitch got wiped the fuck out.

GG, RLI. GG.

It was indeed a very very strong post, and I'm proud to be quoting it here.
Even with your pathetic acclamation attached to it.

As I said, you can recognize the quality posts, and that's a start.

I really don't think you're up to replying to them, though.

Exactly. You also have to worry about what kind of parents would use their child in this way - the girl herself has now left the school. The whole Silver Ring Thing is also counter productive because it has the effect of reducing contraceptive use.
And telling kids that BJ's don't count! Maybe Clinton had a ring like this when he was in office. =)

I'm looking right at that answer, and I'm not seeing anything. At all.

OK, I'll really try. BJ's don't count ... because ... it's all about technical virginity with these girls. If they protect their virginity (for any reason??) then it naturally follows that they're getting into all sorts of other stuff ... because ... you wred that somewhere in the thread ... so now it's gospel.

Haha, joke about Bill Clinton. You've really done your research, haven't you?

You could probably just manage to reply reasonably to one of the above posts. Picking all the best ones and replying flippantly to them all does, however, rather show up your limits in comprehension and exposition.

EDIT: It would be only fair to add my own opinion: I believe in standards for jewellery in schools. A ring, small ear-rings, crucifixes (jewellery, not huge timber things with bloody nails still in them), piercings, hair-shawls even. That's about where I draw the line. If it's ostentatious, it makes distracting noises, or it physically seperates a student from others (sunglasses, burqa) then no.

Uniforms, yes. The kids should get to vote on the uniform, it should be affordable but not deliberately ugly.

And the rules should be very specific across the publicly-funded school system.

I kind of agree with Intangelon. If kids think it makes them better than other kids to have an 18-carat diamond in their ear stud, let the other kids decide what that means.

She could have just worn a chastity belt... I hear those were once fashionable. ;)

Purity rings are great. It lets you know that they are easy to get drunk and are wildcats in bed!

Purity rings are great. It lets you know that they are easy to get drunk and are wildcats in bed!
It's horrid, but kinda true. In my high school we had this circle of Christian kids who decided to bring the purity ring trend to town, and within a year it was a standing assumption that any girl wearing one of those rings would be easy to get in bed and wouldn't ask you to use a condom. And it wasn't a wrong assumption. Three of the girls from that Christian circle were pregnant before graduation.

Is that an answer ?

It is not. Here, like this:

There are real religions, which are old.
Then there are cults, which are new.

Religions have a right to their religious symbols, cults do not.

(I don't believe that, but it's at least an answer.)
yep, I thought that's what it was.


Look, if the entirety of her religious belief was "I must not let guys have straight sex with me" then the ring would be a symbol of faith.
the whole entirety of Christianity is 'obey God' and if you believe that God says not to have sex before marriage, isn't the purity ring a symbol of your commitment not to do that, and then it's pretty much a religious piece of jewelry?

Let me put it this way, I don't think the Rosary beads have anything to do with being a Christian, but I am sure most people would say they are a religious symbol or even needed by some Christians.

Christianity is not as homogeneous as you all would like to pretend.

-

I normally dont make flippant responses but that was a magnificent post.

Yeah well, see how important that 'Purity rin'g is after she has 7 cruisers and a scotch.

the whole entirety of Christianity is 'obey God' and if you believe that God says not to have sex before marriage, isn't the purity ring a symbol of your commitment not to do that, and then it's pretty much a religious piece of jewelry?
Except a club started by American dads isn't quite a religious group now is it? The 'purity ring' symbolizes a promise to the parents not to have sex before marriage with a good bit of good old Christian scare tactics (Jews have guilt, Christians have scare tactics - "you will go to hell!") mixed in. As such, it is about as religious as a twist tie around your finger reminding you to feed the dog when you get home.

Let me put it this way, I don't think the Rosary beads have anything to do with being a Christian, but I am sure most people would say they are a religious symbol or even needed by some Christians.
And you would be wrong. The Rosary is a Christian (or rather Catholic) prayer set. The Cross is the Sign of the Cross, the bead it is connected to is I believe the Lord's Prayer, the small beads are Hail Marys, and the big beads between them are the Apostle's Creed. That is why it is carried around by old members of the faith and members of the Church (though I don't take it you are Catholic so you wouldn't know). How many Nuns do you see wearing purity rings? Or even non-Catholic church people? Outside of this little club.

Now Crucifixes on the other hand arn't religious at all, they are a bastardization of the Rosary and the standard crucifix though they have now been taken to be symbols of the faith which is crap.

Christianity is not as homogeneous as you all would like to pretend.
Neither the Harry Potter Fanclub or the Silver Ring Thing club are branches of Christianity and as such arn't religions and therefore any symbols used by them are not religious.

Yeah well, see how important that 'Purity rin'g is after she has 7 cruisers and a scotch.
Probably won't even take that much.

If you've ever seen a "purity ball," or actually read up on what the "purity" movement teaches, it's pretty much all about a girl's value being determined by how marriageable she is. In other words, how well she submits to the desires of her various male owners. Her own sexual desires are utterly irrelevant. She will be given by her father to another male of his choosing, at which time she will become the domestic and sexual servant for that male.

Everything they've been taught tells them that their desires are to be ignored in favor of pleasing males. They're to submit to male authority. Their purpose in life is to service men. Their bodies exist for male use.

With that kind of message, can you realistically expect young women to actually stand up for themselves and say "no" when their boyfriend demands sex? How can it possibly come as any surprise when they find themselves totally unprepared to stand up in the face of "male authority" demanding sexual favors?

There's a girl I know from church and school who wears one of those rings. She's the only one who does so she has been teased for it a little at times. I like her a lot. :)

Probably won't even take that much.

If you've ever seen a "purity ball," or actually read up on what the "purity" movement teaches, it's pretty much all about a girl's value being determined by how marriageable she is. In other words, how well she submits to the desires of her various male owners. Her own sexual desires are utterly irrelevant. She will be given by her father to another male of his choosing, at which time she will become the domestic and sexual servant for that male.

Everything they've been taught tells them that their desires are to be ignored in favor of pleasing males. They're to submit to male authority. Their purpose in life is to service men. Their bodies exist for male use.

With that kind of message, can you realistically expect young women to actually stand up for themselves and say "no" when their boyfriend demands sex? How can it possibly come as any surprise when they find themselves totally unprepared to stand up in the face of "male authority" demanding sexual favors?

Sickeningly 11th century, eh?

Hehe. Someone I've met and spoken to is the subject of a NSG thread.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that she is not comfortable being in the limelight, and her dad has pushed her into this every step of the way. She completely denies this, as is normal for someone who has been pushed into something.

Oh, and if one of those silver rings is a genuine religious symbol then so are pirate costumes.

Someone shag the ring already! Jeesh!

/too much pr0n in my lifetime

That's the same thing that other people aside from you have said in the same thread. The fact of the matter, then, is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a problem with the fact that it's jewelry. You have a problem with the fact that it does in fact represent their dedication to sexual purity.

You don't have a problem with the idea that perhaps poorer children will feel bad that they can't afford that sort of jewelry. You have a problem with the idea that perhaps other people (including yourselves) disagree with the morality being espoused.

Nuff said.
Wow, you're a mind reader. :rolleyes:

Know why I have a problem? Because this whole thing is a cheap attempt by The Silver Ring Thing UK(the girl's parents work for them) to get publicity for their product and try to get it protected under the Human Rights Act. You should be equally pissed off. They're abusing religion in an attempt to make money.
Hehe. Someone I've met and spoken to is the subject of a NSG thread.
Please tell us you had sex with her.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that she is not comfortable being in the limelight, and her dad has pushed her into this every step of the way. She completely denies this, as is normal for someone who has been pushed into something.
Her parents work for The Silver Ring Thing UK, it's not surprising really.

Oh, and if one of those silver rings is a genuine religious symbol then so are pirate costumes.

But pirate regalia is religious :confused:

But pirate regalia is religious :confused:

Indeed. It explicitly states so in the holy scriptures even. Unlike these rings..

As I said before in a topic about this...

I get the feeling that this specific case has less to do with the fact that she says/thinks it's a Christian expression, (though only a little less, as it is the UK/europe) or that it was said to be against the rules and much, much more to do with the message it supposedly conveys. The secular social taboo, and neo-leftist sin, of sexual abstinence. After all, what could be worse then someone not only abstaining from sex, but actually doing nothing to hide their choice, nor even being ashamed of it either!

Please tell us you had sex with her.


'Fraid not.


But pirate regalia is religious :confused:

Oh yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming

'Fraid not.



Oh yeah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming

Well thats bloody disappointing isn't it..... still, does she look any better in real life?

As I said before in a topic about this...

Nope. Her parents are just using the case to make money.

Someone shag the ring already! Jeesh!

/too much pr0n in my lifetime

It better be a big ring.












Look, someone had to do it--you can't leave big dick jokes untold. They go all crazy on you.

It's been perfectly acceptable in the past to restrict and even outlaw other religious practices that violate human rights, so I see no problem with any laws passed against this purity cult.

It's been perfectly acceptable in the past to restrict and even outlaw other religious practices that violate human rights, so I see no problem with any laws passed against this purity cult.

how is this so called "purity cult" a violation of human rigts?:confused:

Well thats bloody disappointing isn't it..... still, does she look any better in real life?

I guess so. Especially if you find that air of holier-than-thou kind of intriguing.

It's been perfectly acceptable in the past to restrict and even outlaw other religious practices that violate human rights, so I see no problem with any laws passed against this purity cult.

And what human rights are they violating exactly?

how is this so called "purity cult" a violation of human rigts?:confused:

Bottle has already masterfully explained that, but in summary, it prepares young women for a life of subservience.

I find it amusing how just about all of you in general like to smash someone for wanting to wear something that she believes represents her religion. Such symbols of religion are solely up to the person who wants them to represent something. It I truly want a nail to represent my religion then it does. Oh and it is not a stick it up your ass ring as a certain moron has already stated. It is a ring that is to represent one sexual purity. Just because all of you don't have the ability to wear one does not give the right to call it a stick it up your ass ring, and disclaim it as a religious symbol.

It's not for an actual religion. Virginity is something claimed by many religions, and isn't a religion itself. End of.

I guess so. Especially if you find that air of holier-than-thou kind of intriguing.
I think we'd all like to get jiggy with a girl who's made a chastity vow.

It better be a big ring.












Look, someone had to do it--you can't leave big dick jokes untold. They go all crazy on you.
Second. That post was asking for it. Anyone seeing it and leaving it passed up is a fool.

Bottle has already masterfully explained that, but in summary, it prepares young women for a life of subservience.

i will agree that the "purity " group of dads that does this is taking this way way way to far, though not a s far to say a violation of human rights. however i think that it is unnecessary and ignorant to brand all girls that wear a rings as a symbol of a promise they have made as havening been groomed for a life of subservience. I wear a "purity ring" if you want to call it that, to me its a symbol of a promise that have have made my self, i don't wear it as a reminder that i shouldn't have sex, and my parents had no hand in my decision, in fact they had never heard of it until i told them about the idea of wearing a ring as a symbol of wanting to abstain until marriage.

It's not for an actual religion. Virginity is something claimed by many religions, and isn't a religion itself. End of.
Yeah... I don't understand why a fad is now a religious symbol. Or maybe virginity IS a religion, and none of us here on NS have heard of it. :eek:

i will agree that the "purity " group of dads that does this is taking this way way way to far, though not a s far to say a violation of human rights. however i think that it is unnecessary and ignorant to brand all girls that wear a rings as a symbol of a promise they have made as havening been groomed for a life of subservience. I wear a "purity ring" if you want to call it that, to me its a symbol of a promise that have have made my self, i don't wear it as a reminder that i shouldn't have sex, and my parents had no hand in my decision, in fact they had never heard of it until i told them about the idea of wearing a ring as a symbol of wanting to abstain until marriage.

Why ever would you do something like that?

Why ever would you do something like that?

do some thing like what?

Yeah... I don't understand why a fad is now a religious symbol. Or maybe virginity IS a religion, and none of us here on NS have heard of it. :eek:

Virginity is a lifestyle, and some virgins are willing to do stuff to their bfs as long as they keep their hymens. So, it's sometimes a hypocritical lifestyle.

No one else thinks this little twat should have been forced to wear a chastity belt if she was so adamant about protecting her virginity? After all, that belt is as much a symbol of her faith as that stupid ring and the belt would actually stop any potential horny bastard in the process. ;)

Virginity is a lifestyle, and some virgins are willing to do stuff to their bfs as long as they keep their hymens. So, it's sometimes a hypocritical lifestyle.

Indeed...

Virginity is a lifestyle, and some virgins are willing to do stuff to their bfs as long as they keep their hymens. So, it's sometimes a hypocritical lifestyle.

I just want to know where the girls who said "I'll suck you off or take it in the ass to keep my virginity" were when I was in high school. That would have been awesome!

I just want to know where the girls who said "I'll suck you off or take it in the ass to keep my virginity" were when I was in high school. That would have been awesome!

Ditto.

You have a ban on jewelry in school...?

Originally Posted by The Nazz
I just want to know where the girls who said "I'll suck you off or take it in the ass to keep my virginity" were when I was in high school. That would have been awesome!

Haha! Nice...

-----------------

Anyways, a previous post raised an important question (and you guys actually might want to incorporate this into the UN idk):

Should major religions (and it IS major religions) receive preferential treatment over minor religions and agnostics or atheists?

Nowadays, religion is (politically) used for justification of breaking the system, rather than just religion. If I can make the choice as an atheist to go to a Christian/Catholic/whatever school or a public school - should the Christian school be able to "force" its ideals (religion) upon me? In that situation its **School Religion (A.K.A. Anti/A-Atheism) vs. Atheism** That is essentially the same thing you are questioning above, but in reverse (School "Anti-Religion" Principle vs. Religious Principle).

It's okay to repress the minority, but not the majority? That's just wrong.


In my mind its:

A) Do exactly what the judge did for all extraneous situations of "religious freedom"
B) Let the people change schools (its a private institution anyways!).




Best Regards,
F-EN

You know - if the judge had allowed it, it would have been entertaining as hell to watch the jewelry ban become irelevant.

"What headmaster? No sir - this isn't jewelry. This is my scrotal ring of fidelity, these are my nipple-rings of nativity, and this is my tongue-stud of totally diggin' Jesus!"

It better be a big ring.

Look, someone had to do it--you can't leave big dick jokes untold. They go all crazy on you.

I will see your big dick joke and raise you a fat girl joke.

Someone ought to give Lydia a nudge. She won't want to miss this ...

*nudges The Pictish Revival*

It's horrid, but kinda true. In my high school we had this circle of Christian kids who decided to bring the purity ring trend to town, and within a year it was a standing assumption that any girl wearing one of those rings would be easy to get in bed and wouldn't ask you to use a condom. And it wasn't a wrong assumption. Three of the girls from that Christian circle were pregnant before graduation.

Reaping the seeds of ignorance, sown in the name of purity.

It's almost like the purity ring became a red flag to the angry bull of hormone-addled adolescent boys. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

:eek: apparently all one needs to do to get a thread with many posts is to make one with religious subject matter.






that or people were REALLY bored...:D

No, that's pretty much all it takes, really.

That's the same thing that other people aside from you have said in the same thread. The fact of the matter, then, is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a problem with the fact that it's jewelry. You have a problem with the fact that it does in fact represent their dedication to sexual purity.

You don't have a problem with the idea that perhaps poorer children will feel bad that they can't afford that sort of jewelry. You have a problem with the idea that perhaps other people (including yourselves) disagree with the morality being espoused.

Nuff said.

I admire your ability to post in threads without having read them.

This girl has the right to freedom of expression. God, what harm can a ring do anyway?! Even if it's just for decoration, I say let her keep the ring and tell the school to drag itself into the 21st Century!

And I see you've got the same abillity! Quite impressive.

The school's dress code forbids non-religion-specific (crosses, e.g.) jewelry. The reasons why are probably in the article, which has been linked several times. Not reading the links doesn't make you right.

I have a problem with ostentatious displays of conspicuous consumption in schools as a distraction and attempted social leverage. So does God.

Good show. I can't really admire you, though, because obviously you've read and understood the contents of this thread, forming a logical opinion and even added a bit of snap to it with the god thing. I can't admire you, but I can want to shake your hand.

Just to show I'm not just here for the jokes, I'll rip someone a new one.

Hmm, let's see. This poster offended me elsewhere, so they'll do:

O_o Elsewhere, where?



Is that an answer ?

It is not. Here, like this:

There are real religions, which are old.
Then there are cults, which are new.

Religions have a right to their religious symbols, cults do not.

(I don't believe that, but it's at least an answer.)



When I tell someone they're silly, it generally means one of two things: A - they're very random and awesome in such a way where I don't even have to say anything specific about them to compliment them, or B - I've essentially given up on having actual conversation with them, but still want to make it known that I've read and absorbed something they've said, for better or worse.


And if a Sikh needs a kitchen knife to remind him to defend justice, they must be unjust already.

(No, I don't believe that. It is a logical corollary if The Silver Ring Thing is considered a religion)



This is true, I'll grant you that. I don't agree with really any religious symbolism, dagger or ring, rosary, fish or crucifix, simply because it puts focus on an object rather than the thing it's representing.



Look, if the entirety of her religious belief was "I must not let guys have straight sex with me" then the ring would be a symbol of faith.

After that you take it right downtown, so I'll ignore that.



Fortunately, her religious belief is -not- that, but her parents financial belief seems to be so.



It is the obligation of the school to care. Don't get confused now.

So now we're getting a sense of your case. "The school has a rule, so the school is right in however it interprets the rule."



Decent clarification - obligation is a much better term to use in this situation.

I'm simply saying the school has a rule which everyone must follow, and since she does not follow it, then she is in the wrong in the eyes of the school which does not give preferential treatment. Now again, the school does allow religious representations to be worn, but I don't think I have to reiterate how far from a religious representation this ring is.


Simpler, in the way Joe DiMaggio was simpler than Albert Einstein.
You think being able to hit things makes you a debater ? Pfshaw !

I don't agree with Intagleon, but I at least acknowledge that he thought about it.



He made fun of it, at least. Responding in a literalist sense, in that I was again pushing the opinion that the school was in the right, I stated that them banning it is a much more effective and efficient action to take.


A pattern is emerging. You can use the multi-quote. You know a good post when you see it. There is hope for you.



The force is very strong with this one, but much fear in him there is.



The wit of saying "very silly person" instead of "idiot" rather evaporates when you use it twice.



Not using it for wit's sake, so much as I'm just barely restraining myself from beginning what I believe will ultimately end up being a gigantic waste of time in the form of a pissing contest, for all its worth would amount to be.



I think the point was "we can't make rules to make people like each other or disregard real differences, but we can make rules to stop them visibly setting themselves apart in a public school."



Which would accomplish what?


It was indeed a very very strong post, and I'm proud to be quoting it here.
Even with your pathetic acclamation attached to it.

As I said, you can recognize the quality posts, and that's a start.

I really don't think you're up to replying to them, though.



Unfortunately in the case of this forum, many thread-ending and one-hit-kill posts tend to be thwarted by those who simply wish to ignore them entirely, willingly or by mistake. The reply was an attempt to have people glance at the post again, with an emphasis on the fact that it does indeed rule everything else pointless and useless, and that the rest of this thread is essentially a circlejerk.



I'm looking right at that answer, and I'm not seeing anything. At all.

OK, I'll really try. BJ's don't count ... because ... it's all about technical virginity with these girls. If they protect their virginity (for any reason??) then it naturally follows that they're getting into all sorts of other stuff ... because ... you wred that somewhere in the thread ... so now it's gospel.



No, it's been statistically proven that girls who are into the Silver Ring Thing are more worried about the technicality of their hymen being intact than their actual physical purity, and in fact, they are overall more likely to get pregnant accidentally, because they are less likely to use a condom when they finally do break their purity vow.


Haha, joke about Bill Clinton. You've really done your research, haven't you?

You could probably just manage to reply reasonably to one of the above posts. Picking all the best ones and replying flippantly to them all does, however, rather show up your limits in comprehension and exposition.



The Bill Clinton thing was a bit crass, I'll admit, but I felt -someone- had to make the Bill Clinton joke, much like it was necessary for someone to make the penis joke with fucking the ring. It's these types of things that keep the universe from imploding in on itself.

I usually read the entire thread before posting at all, so as I go along I'll hit the multi-quote button for posts I think warrant being replied to, and if by the end of the thread I feel they've already been assessed as well as they're going to be by someone else, I don't include them in my post, because it would be redundant. Course, because of timewarps and the time it takes to read the last page of the thread before posting, this doesn't always work, but I try.

EDIT: It would be only fair to add my own opinion: I believe in standards for jewellery in schools. A ring, small ear-rings, crucifixes (jewellery, not huge timber things with bloody nails still in them), piercings, hair-shawls even. That's about where I draw the line. If it's ostentatious, it makes distracting noises, or it physically seperates a student from others (sunglasses, burqa) then no.

Uniforms, yes. The kids should get to vote on the uniform, it should be affordable but not deliberately ugly.

And the rules should be very specific across the publicly-funded school system.

You should start saving up to build that private school of your own, then. =)

I kind of agree with Intangelon. If kids think it makes them better than other kids to have an 18-carat diamond in their ear stud, let the other kids decide what that means.

That's what they do now, in schools without uniforms. It doesn't quite work against them as you would seem to hope. Very fickle and materialistic things, those teenagers.

Reaping the seeds of ignorance, sown in the name of purity.

It's almost like the purity ring became a red flag to the angry bull of hormone-addled adolescent boys. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

Ironically, yes, it can.

But you can't entirely blame it on the hormone-addled boys - the hormone-addled girls were surely involved in at least most of the instances.

This is true, I'll grant you that. I don't agree with really any religious symbolism, dagger or ring, rosary, fish or crucifix, simply because it puts focus on an object rather than the thing it's representing.


Two things. First the 5 k's of the Sikh faith are not symbolic of anything. Guru Nanak wanted to do away with all sorts of meaningless rites and rituals, and so to suggest that any of the 5 k's are symbolic of anything would be a mistake; admitedly a mistake that even many Sikhs themselves make.

Secondly. When we talk about a concept such as God then full contemplation and understanding of such a huge thing is basicly beyond us. It is the job of a symbol such as the crucifix to focus the mind on an aspect or aspects of God.

So far from turning our minds from God(the thing it is representing) it actualy helps us to turn our thoughts towards God.

No one else thinks this little twat should have been forced to wear a chastity belt if she was so adamant about protecting her virginity? After all, that belt is as much a symbol of her faith as that stupid ring and the belt would actually stop any potential horny bastard in the process. ;)

I feel sorry for the girl actually. With both parents involved with the SRT, I doubt she had that much choice in the matter. I could be completely wrong, but I see her as the victim in this case: used by her parents to push their business agenda.

Two things. First the 5 k's of the Sikh faith are not symbolic of anything. Guru Nanak wanted to do away with all sorts of meaningless rites and rituals, and so to suggest that any of the 5 k's are symbolic of anything would be a mistake; admitedly a mistake that even many Sikhs themselves make.

Secondly. When we talk about a concept such as God then full contemplation and understanding of such a huge thing is basicly beyond us. It is the job of a symbol such as the crucifix to focus the mind on an aspect or aspects of God.

So far from turning our minds from God(the thing it is representing) it actualy helps us to turn our thoughts towards God.

But suppose a Sikh had no dagger - would that make him less of a Sikh if he still kept the ideals of what the dagger represents?

Also, for the 'huge thing' that is god, why not focus on the words? I'd much prefer if the bible itself were the symbol of god, rather than a semi-obscure fish or cross or string of beads, because it actually represents god (in the christian sense, at least - replace bible for other books as necessary).

No one else thinks this little twat should have been forced to wear a chastity belt if she was so adamant about protecting her virginity? After all, that belt is as much a symbol of her faith as that stupid ring and the belt would actually stop any potential horny bastard in the process. ;)
I'm willing to guess that the young woman in question is given precious little say in what happens to her or her body. Her desires are likely regarded as inconvenient distractions from her true purpose in life: making Daddy happy.

I'm willing to guess that the young woman in question is given precious little say in what happens to her or her body. Her desires are likely regarded as inconvenient distractions from her true purpose in life: making Daddy happy.

Daddy AND the future husband. Can't forget it.

Daddy AND the future husband. Can't forget it.
From watching the purity balls, I don't think they make much distinction between the two.

Creepy, no?

Good show. I can't really admire you, though, because obviously you've read and understood the contents of this thread, forming a logical opinion and even added a bit of snap to it with the god thing. I can't admire you, but I can want to shake your hand.

*snip*

Ironically, yes, it can.

But you can't entirely blame it on the hormone-addled boys - the hormone-addled girls were surely involved in at least most of the instances.

I shall shake your hand and take that as a salve for my not deserving admiration.;)

And yes, I did forget to mention the girls' hormonosity as well. I guess I don't have nearly as much experience with genuinely horny girls as I do boys from my teaching days. It must have something to do with how glaringly obvious the boys are, relatively speaking. Of course, there's also the "we can smell our own" principle, too.

From watching the purity balls, I don't think they make much distinction between the two.

Creepy, no?

Creepy, yes.

Daughters as chattel. You've come a long way, baby. :(

No one else thinks this little twat should have been forced to wear a chastity belt if she was so adamant about protecting her virginity? After all, that belt is as much a symbol of her faith as that stupid ring and the belt would actually stop any potential horny bastard in the process. ;)

But that would start to smell ...
While definately scaring off boys, unpleasant to have in the same class.

From watching the purity balls, I don't think they make much distinction between the two.

Creepy, no?

That's the whole point. After all, if the daddy hands off the pussy to the son-in-law, there's none of that dangerous woman-thinking-on-her-own to worry about.

I shall shake your hand and take that as a salve for my not deserving admiration.;)

And yes, I did forget to mention the girls' hormonosity as well. I guess I don't have nearly as much experience with genuinely horny girls as I do boys from my teaching days. It must have something to do with how glaringly obvious the boys are, relatively speaking. Of course, there's also the "we can smell our own" principle, too.

Oh definitely. I can tell when a guy likes a girl from a mile away, but I could be two feet from a girl humping someone else's leg and I still couldn't be entirely sure.

I just want to know where the girls who said "I'll suck you off or take it in the ass to keep my virginity" were when I was in high school. That would have been awesome!

(Nods) I really agree.

Indeed...

Chill, Pancake.

Chill, Pancake.

:confused: Why should I chill? The whole "I'll have oral sex and other things but I won't have actual sex" stuff is hypocritical. I didn't say anything strange, did I? :confused:

Oh definitely. I can tell when a guy likes a girl from a mile away, but I could be two feet from a girl humping someone else's leg and I still couldn't be entirely sure.

LMAO, and cleaning spit off my monitor! Both from your turn of phrase and the fact that I'm exactly the same damn way!

:confused: Why should I chill? The whole "I'll have oral sex and other things but I won't have actual sex" stuff is hypocritical. I didn't say anything strange, did I? :confused:

...

:confused: Why should I chill? The whole "I'll have oral sex and other things but I won't have actual sex" stuff is hypocritical. I didn't say anything strange, did I? :confused:

Oh, I thought you did. Sorry. BTW, nice puppet, Pancake.

:confused: Why should I chill? The whole "I'll have oral sex and other things but I won't have actual sex" stuff is hypocritical. I didn't say anything strange, did I? :confused:

Pancake? Why do you have your hand up this accounts bac....you know I'd rather not know.

LMAO, and cleaning spit off my monitor! Both from your turn of phrase and the fact that I'm exactly the same damn way!

Most guys I know are that way. I think the more hormonal and sexual you are, the more you're able to identify sexual interest from your own side of the playing field, and possibly the less you're able to identify sexual interest from the other side.

That's the whole point. After all, if the daddy hands off the pussy to the son-in-law, there's none of that dangerous woman-thinking-on-her-own to worry about.
Well yes, that's pretty creepy in and of itself. But I also find the incestuous flavor of the whole thing to be an additional level of yuck...in my opinion, no father should be thinking about his daughter's vagina as much as those "Godly" fathers are doing.

Oh, I thought you did. Sorry. BTW, nice puppet, Pancake.

thanks... i forgot i wasn't posting as Darknovae. :(

And that was the puppet's first post too! Now everyone knows who it is... no more anonymous posting for TheKnightsThatSayNi.

And that was the puppet's first post too! Now everyone knows who it is... no more anonymous posting for TheKnightsThatSayNi.

Who will now no longer be the Knight who says ni :p ?

thanks... i forgot i wasn't posting as Darknovae. :(

And that was the puppet's first post too! Now everyone knows who it is... no more anonymous posting for TheKnightsThatSayNi.

October3 once made that mistake. A lot of puppeteers probably do.

October3 once made that mistake. A lot of puppeteers probably do.

Yep. Which is why I don't puppet - too much work, logging in and out all the time. Fuck that.

Yep. Which is why I don't puppet - too much work, logging in and out all the time. Fuck that.

Yeah, I never puppet.

Well yes, that's pretty creepy in and of itself. But I also find the incestuous flavor of the whole thing to be an additional level of yuck...in my opinion, no father should be thinking about his daughter's vagina as much as those "Godly" fathers are doing.

My concern with my daughter's vagina has basically been limited to: buying pads when she lived with me, making her Ob/Gyn appointments and paying the co-pays, and telling her that she really should hold off on procreation until after college. So far, so good.

My concern with my daughter's vagina has basically been limited to: buying pads when she lived with me, making her Ob/Gyn appointments and paying the co-pays, and telling her that she really should hold off on procreation until after college. So far, so good.

Good plan.

My concern with my daughter's vagina has basically been limited to: buying pads when she lived with me, making her Ob/Gyn appointments and paying the co-pays, and telling her that she really should hold off on procreation until after college. So far, so good.

Pfft, buying pads is no excuse for a big party.


:p

Pfft, buying pads is no excuse for a big party.


:p

sure it is! I totally plan on taking my girls out for a big celebration

"ho-rah! your girl stuff is working now!"

lots of fun!

sure it is! I totally plan on taking my girls out for a big celebration

"ho-rah! your girl stuff is working now!"

lots of fun!

Invite all their friends(especially anyone you suspect they might have a crush on) to a "My First Period" party. Serve things like red lemonade, tomato soup, and a tampon shaped cake.

Make sure to record the event for your entry into the "Most Embarrassing Parent" contest.

Oh, and one of these:
http://yg.typepad.com/makingtoys2/images/tampons.jpg
for all the guests!

lots of fun!

Helium filled condoms ?

Condom animals.

sure it is! I totally plan on taking my girls out for a big celebration

"ho-rah! your girl stuff is working now!"

lots of fun!

Not to be too gross (and that's tough around here), but are you planning the same for your boys, assuming you have them? Will they get a "boy stuff is working" party after their first wet dream? ;)

Condom animals.

Nah - Poxie is more fun !
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/5195/poxsk8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Also known as Treponema Pallidum to its friends :)

Not to be too gross (and that's tough around here), but are you planning the same for your boys, assuming you have them? Will they get a "boy stuff is working" party after their first wet dream? ;)

That'd only be fair. Have a big white mess for a cake.

That'd only be fair. Have a big white mess for a cake.

Vanilla ice cream cake shaped like a bottle of lotion!

Vanilla ice cream cake shaped like a bottle of lotion!

Humms "vanilla icecream" by Stephen Lynch.

Not to be too gross (and that's tough around here), but are you planning the same for your boys, assuming you have them? Will they get a "boy stuff is working" party after their first wet dream? ;)

I won't ever have a boy, but if I did, that would totally be up to my husband....I think a "congrats on your jizz" party from your mom might be slightly traumatic.

This thread is lol now.

I won't ever have a boy, but if I did, that would totally be up to my husband....I think a "congrats on your jizz" party from your mom might be slightly traumatic.

As would be a "happy bleeding" party thrown by your dad...

October3 once made that mistake. A lot of puppeteers probably do.

Now I feel even worse because October3 has done it. :(

As would be a "happy bleeding" party thrown by your dad...

meh, I don't see that as traumatic so much, since your menstrual is not directly linked to sex.

meh, I don't see that as traumatic so much, since your menstrual is not directly linked to sex.

It's the act of an egg's cycle of being available for fertilization and, with no sperm to fertilize with, the death and ejection of said egg through the vagina.

It's nature saying "You can still have babies! Wanna have babies? You could have babies now if you wanted. You know what we should do? Have babies. We need more babies. How bout you make a baby? Here's an egg. Make a baby."

:p

well, I mean biologically linked.....but just because a girl starts her period doesn't mean she is.....well, actually......never mind.

what I mean is that giving a guy a "happy ejaculate" party is more akin to giving a girl a "happy orgasm" party......the menstrual party is more like if I were to give my son (which I will never have) a "happy your voice changed" party.....or something.

Anyway, I am all confused and embarrassed for my son I don't have so excuse my incoherence.

Lmao.

Yeah, granted, but I think a more accurate analogy would be the boy's "happy dropped balls", or something along those lines. The voice thing would be closer to giving your daughter a happy "you've got tits now" party. :p

It's the act of an egg's cycle of being available for fertilization and, with no sperm to fertilize with, the death and ejection of said egg through the vagina.

It's nature saying "You can still have babies! Wanna have babies? You could have babies now if you wanted. You know what we should do? Have babies. We need more babies. How bout you make a baby? Here's an egg. Make a baby."

:p
well, I mean biologically linked.....but just because a girl starts her period doesn't mean she is.....well, actually......never mind.

what I mean is that giving a guy a "happy ejaculate" party is more akin to giving a girl a "happy orgasm" party......the menstrual party is more like if I were to give my son (which I will never have) a "happy your voice changed" party.....or something.

Anyway, I am all confused and embarrassed for my son I don't have so excuse my incoherence.

Lmao.

Yeah, granted, but I think a more accurate analogy would be the boy's "happy dropped balls", or something along those lines. The voice thing would be closer to giving your daughter a happy "you've got tits now" party. :p

your testes descend when you are a baby though.....it's not a puberty related change......

maybe there should be "happy body hair" parties.....like "happy armpit fuzz!" or something equal opportunity.

your testes descend when you are a baby though.....it's not a puberty related change......

maybe there should be "happy body hair" parties.....like "happy armpit fuzz!" or something equal opportunity.

Shaving Day

Shaving Day

yay!

*happy wax your armpits day*

Pfft, buying pads is no excuse for a big party.


:p

Says the male. Sheesh.

That'd only be fair. Have a big white mess for a cake.

I'm thinking meringue, and lots of it. Llike the explosive ejaculations in the Scary Movie series...the only really funny joke in any of those films.

17 pages and no one laughs at the fact her last name is Playfoot? Come on...

17 pages and no one laughs at the fact her last name is Playfoot? Come on...

Meh--that's low-hanging fruit.

Meh--that's low-hanging fruit.

This whole thread is low-hanging fruit.