Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casserole)
    Hmmm, who's to say she doesn't go round the bike sheds at break for some little action?
    That's irrelevant to the point being made. Read the whole thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    She was probally a lil slapper, shouldn't have had it on anyway.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I’m disappointed with the ruling, yet can’t say I’m surprised... Personally, however, I’m increasingly becoming of the opinion that no religious symbols should be allowed in state schools.

    This, I think, may ease some tensions between groups as well as create a better understanding between pupils of different religions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If it's school policy to have NO RINGS, get her to take it off. Other than that, it's not hurting anyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the ruling was entirely correct and justified, as attire that is non-essential to someone practicing a faith are banned in the uniform policy which her parents had agreed to.

    However, I find it irresistible to comment that it disgusts me that the media has not questioned whether someone who is a mere sixteen years old, and who has evidently been brainwashed by her parents (who advocate the ring scheme in the UK) is worthy of their attention. All of her comments read like a press release, I very much doubt had she been born to faithless parents whether she would have either pursued the legal action, trotted out the hackneyed platitudes or worn the awful ring in the first place.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by threepiecesuit)
    I think that the ruling was entirely correct and justified, as attire that is non-essential to someone practicing a faith are banned in the uniform policy which her parents had agreed to.

    However, I find it irresistible to comment that it disgusts me that the media has not questioned whether someone who is a mere sixteen years old, and who has evidently been brainwashed by her parents (who advocate the ring scheme in the UK) is worthy of their attention. All of her comments read like a press release, I very much doubt had she been born to faithless parents whether she would have either pursued the legal action, trotted out the hackneyed platitudes or worn the awful ring in the first place.
    Surely you’re going a bit far in your criticisms?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Anyone who thinks the "solution" to this conflict is to ban all religious items is actually making the problem worse by widening the conflict.
    Quite to the contrary. Have you even seen how this situation has been handled in France? Despite a few teething problems it's actually worked very well and I wouldn't say "conflict has been widened" at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont get why the whole religious debate comes into it for this kind of thing.
    Just because you believe in it for your "religion" then why should you be able to wear things where you would no normally be allowed to?
    I might believe in free love but it doesnt mean I would be allowed to go around naked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Rules are rules. A ban on jewellery would obviously include rings. Lydia Playfoot has most likely been brainwashed with this purity nonsense anyway. If you don't want to have sex don't have it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angelil)
    Quite to the contrary. Have you even seen how this situation has been handled in France? Despite a few teething problems it's actually worked very well and I wouldn't say "conflict has been widened" at all.
    The fact that people have accepted the ban is not relevant. The question is one of a conflict of freedoms and in France they decided to ban all relgious garments from public schools. Thus they removed more freedoms in order to avoid the problem of how to decide between a few.

    The basic point I was making is a simple one: that the problem is one of a conflict between two freedoms. Surely, then, banning all religious clothing is creating more conflicts. Just because the conflicts have been won by one side doesn't make it better.

    One could just as easily go to the other extreme and say that religious freedom wins out and that no item of clothing regarded by the wearer as religious can be banned. That too would have a few teething problems but would then settle down with schools unable to ban anything.

    So, merely stating that there are no complaints only serves to show that people have accepted the decision, but not that the decision was right nor that the decision is a good solution.

    Why should we ban all religious clothing just to make life easy? Since when did the freedom of religion become a worthless freedom ? Surely, as with everything else, we should tread the middle path and accept that in a conflict between two opposing freedoms we need to try and keep to the centre and allow as much of both freedoms to exist as possible?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The Purity ring is not mentioned in Chrisianity nor the Bible therefore does not qualify as religous hence it not being allowed in the school.

    If i'm walking around school wearing a medalian with religous symbol in it and the school asked me to remove the chain, i'm not going to kick up a fuss, as a religous symbol does not make the chain 'religous'.

    However if it was a Kara (Sikh Bangle) that would be a completely different issue as that is an essiential part of my religion.

    On the whole the issue has been blown totaly out of proportion, it's a ring, shes not going around punching people with it. Live and let live.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wesetters)
    The ring was a fashion item. If the school's policy is to ban jewellery, then it shouldn't be an exception, any more than a real religious symbol should be.
    My school was RC, and we weren't allowed jewellery, even it was a necklace of our Lord Saviour Jesus "the Bigman" Christ.

    I actually wear one now, but it has less of a real religious symbolism behind it.

    I would feel quite offended if someone asked me to take it off. But then again, I wear it underneath my clothes out of sight, and am not 16 nor do I go to school.

    I get the feeling that the school banned it on the policy of no rings for all its students, and because of its supposed religious element, the media has made Mount Everest out of a small clump of dirt.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gaijin)
    I get the feeling that the school banned it on the policy of no rings for all its students, and because of its supposed religious element, the media has made Mount Everest out of a small clump of dirt.
    Totally agree - it shouldn't have been allowed to make it to court in the first place. I don't suppose the parents helped much there though.

    UniOfLife - I have a feeling you and I are not going to agree on this one...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    To ban any item of clothing or whatever is an infringement on civil liberties. However, it is understood that these restrictions are necessary. Putting a muderer in prison is denying him his human right of freedom of movement but society deems it necessary to ensure their civil liberties.
    I’m sorry but you can’t compare banning religious symbols in state schools to protecting the lives of the general public.


    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And it amazes me that people who are opposed to religion because it opposes "freedom" would oppose the freedom of religious people to be free.
    The fact is that banning religious symbols in schools does not prevent religious people being free.


    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Surely, then, banning all religious clothing is creating more conflicts.
    I disagree. In France there have been few problems, and I think the majority of the public in Britain would welcome a ban on all religious symbols.


    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So, merely stating that there are no complaints only serves to show that people have accepted the decision, but not that the decision was right nor that the decision is a good solution.
    You’re not taking into account the mentality of the French people towards religion. There are actually a lot of people who agree with the ban (including religious people).


    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Since when did the freedom of religion become a worthless freedom ?
    Since when did stopping children from wearing religious symbols in state schools make freedom of religion a worthless freedom? It’s not as if the government would be banning religion completely.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrzej S.)
    I’m sorry but you can’t compare banning religious symbols in state schools to protecting the lives of the general public.



    The fact is that banning religious symbols in schools does not prevent religious people being free.



    I disagree. In France there have been few problems, and I think the majority of the public in Britain would welcome a ban on all religious symbols.



    You’re not taking into account the mentality of the French people towards religion. There are actually a lot of people who agree with the ban (including religious people).



    Since when did stopping children from wearing religious symbols in state schools make freedom of religion a worthless freedom? It’s not as if the government would be banning religion completely.
    If it is a person's religion to wear a head-scarf (let's say) then preventing them from doing so (even for 5 minutes) amounts to impinging on their freedom of religion. It is no less than forcing a Muslim to eat pork. You have removed that person's freedom of religion.

    Of course, we remove freedoms all the time because it is necessary. But is this one necessary? Is it necessary to prevent all religious garments? No. The only reason why people advocate it is because it is easy. Much easier to ban all religious clothes than to sift through them deciding which ones are truly religious.

    It doesn't matter how many people support it, it is still removing a freedom. Will you at least agree with me on that point? Even you Angelil could agree with me that it is removing a freedom?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I think it depends how you define freedom, and as soon as "freedom" equates to playing silly buggers in court like this, you can hardly blame people for starting to lose respect for such "freedoms".

    Freedom is an illusion anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angelil)
    Personally I think it depends how you define freedom, and as soon as "freedom" equates to playing silly buggers in court like this, you can hardly blame people for starting to lose respect for such "freedoms".

    Freedom is an illusion anyway.
    It is your opinion that it was "silly buggers" clearly the judge disagreed because he didn't throw it out. Would it be stupid for a Muslim girl to complain about her head-scarf?

    A person does have a freedom of religion and expression for that matter. To ban any religious item or any item is limiting a freedom. Don't you agree?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with Frances ban on all religious symbols. These problems can be avoided if the rules were the same for all of us. I can see why people would think there were varying levels of freedom in schools. School isn't about freedom
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Jeeeesus Christ... She must be a real slut if her sexual urges can only be controlled by wearing a magic ring
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    ^^ :rofl:

    UniOfLife: I don't know why the judge didn't throw it out - perhaps he didn't feel able to due to cases like Shabina Begum's case setting a precedent? For the last time, freedom is an illusion. Are we all free to do whatever we want, regardless of the consequences to ourselves or other people? No, we are not. Society prevents true freedom, and perhaps quite rightly so, since anarchy would probably reign otherwise. The implementation of rules (as in the case at hand) allows freedom only to a certain extent. So do I think that banning an item is to ban a freedom? Not really, if the freedom never existed in the first place (which it probably didn't).
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.