ChristiansUnite Forums

Schoolgirls are forced to take off chastity rings - or be ordered out of lessons 

It is only a band of silver, imprinted with a Bible verse, worn by a schoolgirl.

But the decision by one of the country's top state schools to ban American-style 'purity rings' - increasingly worn by Christian teenagers to symbolise a pledge not to have sex before marriage - has prompted not just a standoff with local parents, but a debate over religious expression and sex education.

Heather and Philip Playfoot have spent almost two years in dispute with Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, over their 15-year-old daughter Lydia's ring. While the school's uniform rules forbid jewellery, they argue that the rings - given to teenagers who complete a controversial evangelical church course preaching sexual abstinence - hold genuine religious significance.

'The ring is a reminder to them of the promise they have made, much the same as a wedding ring is an outward sign of an inward promise,' said Heather Playfoot.

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

'We don't want her education to be disrupted because of it but we do want her to feel free to wear something that is very significant.'

The family claim that Lydia and up to a dozen other pupils wearing purity rings have been forced to take lessons in isolation as punishment for breaking the rules, threatened with detention and that - in Lydia's case - the school governors intimated she could be expelled for repeatedly defying the rules. Heather Playfoot said the school had told them it was a health and safety issue.

Lydia has now stopped wearing the ring in school. 'It makes me feel quite upset and angry as well, and in a way betrayed a little, because the school are always teaching us to be safe and we are trying to stand up for something,' she told The Observer. 'We get picked on and called out of lessons to see if we have got [the rings] on. I do actually keep to the school rules and I don't like stepping out of line or anything, but I just think this is really unfair.'

Her ring came from the Silver Ring Thing, an evangelical initiative recently introduced to Britain from the US, with which her parents' local church is involved.

The organisation is highly controversial, with some experts arguing that abstinence pledges are actually less effective than conventional sexual education which advocates teenagers waiting until they are ready, but emphasises safe sex.

Silver Ring Thing is critical of contraception, suggesting it is dangerously fallible - which critics say only encourages teenagers who do break their pledges to have unprotected sex.

The Playfoots however are equally critical of standard sex education. 'Here you have 12 girls who want to live an alternative lifestyle: we are not asking the school to subscribe to it, just respect it,' said Heather Playfoot.

The issue has now been taken up by the Tory MP Andrew Selous, chair of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, who raised the wearing of purity rings with the Schools Minister Jim Knight in the House of Commons last week.

Knight told him in a written parliamentary answer that while school governors had freedom to set uniform rules, government guidance states that they 'should have regard to their responsibilities under equalities legislation' and be 'sensitive to pupils' cultural and religious needs'.

Selous said while many schools banned jewellery he did not see a problem with purity rings, adding: 'Given that the government is failing to avchieve its teenage pregnancy targets, you would have thought that schools would do everything in their power to help children help themselves.'

However Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society defended the school, adding: 'If the school has the uniform policy I don't see why it should make an exception for this. I'm deeply distrustful of these Silver Ring Thing-type initiatives: the research is quite clear that they don't work.'

Leon Nettley, headmaster of the Millais School, said in a statement that the school's own sex education programme already stressed the illegality of underage sex and encouraged pupils to discuss the issues, adding: 'In relation to the issue of wearing a purity ring, the school is not convinced that pupils' rights have been interfered with by the application of the school's uniform policy.'

The abstinence debate

Hundreds of British teenagers are thought to have gone through courses organised by the Silver Ring Thing, created a decade ago by two Christian activists in Arizona as a response to rising teenage pregnancies. It promotes abstinence before marriage and sexual fidelity within it, using Bible teachings and DVD clips to emphasise the horrors of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions.

At the end of the course, children prepared to pledge chastity can pay £10 for a silver purity ring to be given to their spouse on their wedding day: even non-virgins can be 'born again'.

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

A MORI poll for The Observer found a fifth of British teenagers had had underage sex. The average age of losing virginity was 17. Almost a third of women questioned wished they had waited longer.


____________________

These girls can't wear chastity rings but a boy is allowed to wear girls clothes to school. This world is definitely becoming more evil by the day.

If the girls can't wear the rings, then the sikh, and muslims, shouldn't wear the bangle or the headcovering.

I agree!

Amen.  What a sad state.  And imagine it is going to be worse. 

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

I think that the specific issue here is that the head covering is not jewelry and the ring is. the rules as they were established may not have specifically addresed religious head coverings where as they did specifically address the issue of jewelry.

Also, did those students with the head coverings get authorization for the wear of them prior to attending or just show up.

It sounds like this young lady, simply showed up to school, a school she was already attending, in violation of the rules she and her parents agreed to obay without any prior authorization.

Lets get specific. I think the silver ring thing, if a fantastic idea and plan, but they went about it wrong in this case. You can not (as a believer) knowingly violate the rules of an organization such as this school when you are in fact the one paying them to enforce them.

If they want to be able to wear jewelry to school it should have been addressed before wearing it, or before enrolling, to avoid the issue.

I think the parents were very irresponcible to let thier daughter violate a rule of the organization without exhaustively pursueing some sort of exception throught the school administration before simply doing something they had prior knowlage to be in violation.

I don't go into an establishment that has posted restrictions about the wear of hats, with a hat on then try to get an exception made for my religious or otherwise head covering. You enter, abiding by the posted and known rule, then pursue an exception to the rule, clearly stating your reasoning, and if they still deny you admission  then you simply do not attend.

Again while I deeply respect the abstinance position of this young lady, I feel it was very irresponsible to simply assume that they could violate the rule (regardless of what anyone else is doing) without seeking first to get this allowed through the proper means.

Without knowing the full detail of the headcoverings this is the surface assesment.

i

Additionally I think that the parents are intentionally making this about the abstinance vs controceptive debate, which it is not

Its about violation of the rules of a  school nothing more.

So what are their motives?

not allowing the wear of jewelry is not a violation of religion. I am not aware of any religion the you HAVE to wear a certail piece of jewelry at all times. I believe the headcovering is required my that religion is it not?

If it were a violation of the religion an exception can and usually is made, however the Christian Faith has no required articals, but rather inward belief. Her rights have not been violated in any way......

I am confused as to where the real issue is and feel that the parents simply are seeking noteriaty for an abstinance program.

Does she REALY NEED to wear the ring AT school to be a part of the program?

How many of us work in an environment that forbids jewelry.......I for one do. I obey the ruels as a condition of employment.......If the parents do not like the rule them they should first seek to have it changed.....then she can wear the ring

If I were able to put my daughter thru a private school, I would definitely rather pay tuition fo a Christian School, where my child would be taught morals, be able to read the Bible, talk about Jesus, and the boys would not be wearing girls clothes.

Why would I want my money to support a private school that discriminates against Christian values, and clearly allows immorality.

I may be mistaken here PR but if this school has a dress code, I am sure the young men are not wearing womens cloths to it. ;)

Sister I agree 100%

it appears that this is one of the few "public" schools that has moved to implimenting a dress code. If they wish to have the rules changed, then they should do it first, not violate them intensionally, is all I am saying

The way I see it is a bangle is jewelry, whether it is significant of a religion or not it the school has banned jewelry from being worn, than it should apply to all student no exceptions.

The girl was and has been wearing the silver ring prior to this ruling being made. Nothing was said about it to her until the school decided to change the ruling specifically to omit the wearing of this ring. As for the boys wearing girls clothes that was another school entirely. That school did have a dress code also. The boy just showed up one day wearing girls clothes. The school did nothing and said nothing about it until another parent complained. The dress code of that school simply states that no clothing that would cause a distraction to learning could be worn. The school has not allowed muscle shirts, bare midriffs, no hair coloring, etc yet when this was brought up they said it was not a distraction to the other students.

Agreed.

In short  I think there is an issue here we are not seeing shown.

1 No "public" school can promote or discriminate against any religious belief.

Here is part of the problem since Islam required their followers to wear the head covering. If Christ had required us to wear anything I am sure we too would be allowed.

2 There is a clear rule that says no jewelry.


So if we get technical, the only violation according to the laws of man and God is by the young lady and her parents, but there may also be additional information the media is witholding that would change my perspective.

I still have to hold to obedience. Christ teaches us to give unto Cesar what is Cesar's........well Cesar also required obedience to the law, and since the law here is not in violation of Gods law in any real way, we must be respectful as followers of Christ and obey it.

Do I think it is right to deny the young lady her ability to wear a ring...........yes. She violated the rule and should have pursued an exception on the grounds of belief BEFORE breaking the rule.

So PR, did the school change the rules? Did they add the "no jewelry" rule after she started wearing the ring or was it in place prior to that?

It seems like an insignifigant point but it really is the whole point.

If the school changed the rule because of the ring............then they are in the wrong. But if the rule was there from the beginning then they were right to ask her to remove it.

I agree with you somewhat on this. As Christians we are not to make an idol of such things. Which they appear to be doing just that. Their argument though is not the ring but the meaning that it stands for as being religious. This I can't argue against. However the school made their ruling based on the wearing of this ring and not based on the wearing of other jewelry. So intent to discriminate is there. In an attempt to cover themselves on the discrimination thing they made the ruling all exclusive with the exception of the Sihk jewelry.

I would also agree that she should have contended with this in other ways than to simply break the rules by wearing it to school.

Let me clarify. There was a ruling about jewelry before this incident but it did not include the wearing of rings. There were individuals that had worn engagement rings and frindship rings and nothing was said. This girl had worn this ring for quite some time. It wasn't until a class on sexuality that the ring became an issue. Then the school made a ruling to include rings in the no jewelry code.

in that light the school deffinatly is in error. looks more like a discriminating circomstance than a simple policy clairification.

bad news.....they will win in court.

Yes the school will especially since this is in England and not here in the U.S.

Millais School, (Local education authority: West Sussex) is a Secondary School in Horsham, West Sussex, England. It is a Girls school of Non Denominational religion.

The court system there has been notably for the school authorities unless it is in a stituation were non-Christians are involved. The reason I posted this article on the school is that our judicial system has been following suit after other countries, especially England, in deciding just issues even though their laws are different from ours. No that isn't right either but it is indeed the case.

I read that part "west Sussex" but for whatever reason didn't make the connection.

They definitely will force the issue in court then and without a doubt win, for the very reason you stated PR.

England has not been Christian friendly for many years..........think they have some hard feelings from the old kings forcing it down their throats? LOL

Probably so after all that is why we are the U.S. and no longer a British colony.  Unfortunately there are forces to bring that same thing to us but for different reasons.