Silver rings and slogans - leave them at the school gates
I meant to blog about this when it happened, but got distracted. But this story on the BBC news website (School bans anti-abortion t-shirt) put me in mind of this story ("Purity" ring case in High Court).
I'll deal with the latter story first. To summarise briefly, a US fad for flaunting your virginity in the name of Christianity by wearing a small silver ring has finally washed up on the shores of Britain. This girl, Lydia Playfoot, has claimed religious discrimination because her school asked her not to wear the ring. In a previous blog entry I have mentioned religious symbols and health and safety. Yet again, I believe this is a health and safety issue, not a freedom of religion or a discrimination issue. Jewellery ought to be banned from school because of the health and safety risk, and if your religious beliefs demand that you wear certain items, and no compromise can be reached with health and safety, then the latter should prevail. If you have a problem with that, go to a faith school. Stay out of secular mainstream education.
Two things interest me about this case. Firstly, Lydia insists that "In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith." The rings are inscribed with a quotation from the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4 which says:
The second thing that interests me about this case is the fact that she is 16, and therefore old enough to get married. This brings up the interesting legal hypothetical. If the ring was her wedding ring would it still be banned? If the answer were yes, then the issue is health and safety and the fiduciary duty of care that the school owes to the pupils in its care. If the answer however was no, then there may be discrimination involved. If I were her lawyer that is the avenue I would be pursuing, rather than instantly seeking to make this about religious discrimination. Sometimes lawyers need to apply Occam's Razor...
Back to the first mentioned story about the t-shirt. In this case, another 16 year old, Sarah Scott, has been banned from wearing a t-shirt with the slogan "Abortion is murder" to school. Unlike Ms Playfoot's case, there is no overt claim of religious discrimination. Ms Scott claims this is interference with her freedom of speech. She may have a point, and like her mother I too wonder if the reaction would have been different if she had been wearing a pro-choice slogan. But that is beside the point. Schools are entitled to set their own uniform policies. If they grant the pupils the privilege of non-uniform days (not, I might add, "wear what you want" days), then they still are entitled to dictate what is and is not appropriate to wear within the confines of the school. I agree with Ms Scott that the Playboy tops worn by her peers are inappropriate. But that doesn't make her own t-shirt any less inappropriate. The fault here is not that she was "picked on", but that the other pupils were not given similar messages.
I'll deal with the latter story first. To summarise briefly, a US fad for flaunting your virginity in the name of Christianity by wearing a small silver ring has finally washed up on the shores of Britain. This girl, Lydia Playfoot, has claimed religious discrimination because her school asked her not to wear the ring. In a previous blog entry I have mentioned religious symbols and health and safety. Yet again, I believe this is a health and safety issue, not a freedom of religion or a discrimination issue. Jewellery ought to be banned from school because of the health and safety risk, and if your religious beliefs demand that you wear certain items, and no compromise can be reached with health and safety, then the latter should prevail. If you have a problem with that, go to a faith school. Stay out of secular mainstream education.
Two things interest me about this case. Firstly, Lydia insists that "In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith." The rings are inscribed with a quotation from the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4 which says:
God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin. Then each of you will control your body and live in holiness and honour.Note, God at no point insists that you wear a silver ring. If you want to remain sexually pure, how about expressing your faith by keeping your legs shut and not having sex? I think actually practising what you preach pleases God more than just wearing symbols. I would remind Ms Playfoot and her ilk of Matthew 6:5:
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.Wearing these rings reminds me of the actions of the hypocrites, the ones who make a great show of their prayers, the kind of people Jesus expressly stated not to be like. So when these rings are banned, don't complain of your right to religious expression being violated, because you do a very poor show of following your own religion.
The second thing that interests me about this case is the fact that she is 16, and therefore old enough to get married. This brings up the interesting legal hypothetical. If the ring was her wedding ring would it still be banned? If the answer were yes, then the issue is health and safety and the fiduciary duty of care that the school owes to the pupils in its care. If the answer however was no, then there may be discrimination involved. If I were her lawyer that is the avenue I would be pursuing, rather than instantly seeking to make this about religious discrimination. Sometimes lawyers need to apply Occam's Razor...
Back to the first mentioned story about the t-shirt. In this case, another 16 year old, Sarah Scott, has been banned from wearing a t-shirt with the slogan "Abortion is murder" to school. Unlike Ms Playfoot's case, there is no overt claim of religious discrimination. Ms Scott claims this is interference with her freedom of speech. She may have a point, and like her mother I too wonder if the reaction would have been different if she had been wearing a pro-choice slogan. But that is beside the point. Schools are entitled to set their own uniform policies. If they grant the pupils the privilege of non-uniform days (not, I might add, "wear what you want" days), then they still are entitled to dictate what is and is not appropriate to wear within the confines of the school. I agree with Ms Scott that the Playboy tops worn by her peers are inappropriate. But that doesn't make her own t-shirt any less inappropriate. The fault here is not that she was "picked on", but that the other pupils were not given similar messages.
posted by Paul at
12:33
|
| 
