Is Christianity under attack in the Western World?

[culbair]

"A teenager fighting for the right to wear a religious symbol at school has accused teachers of discriminating against her Christian faith.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, has been banned from wearing a so-called chastity ring engraved with a biblical verse because her school says it breaks the uniform policy.

The High Court was told that the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, stopped her and several other Christian girls from wearing the rings on the basis that the school uniform code did not allow the wearing of jewelery.

But Muslim and Sikh students had been allowed to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, as part of their faith.

Lydia said in a written statement that, although proud to be a pupil at the non-denominational school, "it does not afford equal rights to Christians".

Millais school head teacher Leon Nettley said in reply there had been no discrimination - the ring was "not a Christian symbol, and is not required to be worn by any branch within Christianity".

From Sky News website:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...271734,00.html

[QuizMaster]

Even though I am an atheist, I agree there should be respect for religious practices.
But that doesn't mean anyone can wear any piece of jewellery or any garment, and claim it is for christian reasons.
The other religions have very specific traditions: the headscarf, the sikh dagger and turban, etc.
It would be reasonable to allow christians to wear a crucifix necklace or something similar, or for a nun to wear full headgear even when not doing nunly duties.
But limits are limits.

[Mary Frances]

Christianity has been under attack in the Western World for decades.

Discrimination against black people is called racism
Discrimination against Jews is called anti-semitism
Discrimination against women is called sexism
Discrimination against gays is called homphobia

Discrimination against Christians is called....

freedom of speech

[meriwether]

Christianity has been under attack in the Western World for decades.

Discrimination against black people is called racism
Discrimination against Jews is called anti-semitism
Discrimination against women is called sexism
Discrimination against gays is called homphobia

Discrimination against Christians is called....

freedom of speech

Bullsh1t.
Attacking the Christian Churches comes under freedom of speech.
Diccriminating against Christians comes under discrimination.

[ibis]

The school is quite correct. No sect of Christianity requires the wearing of such a ring - therefore the ring is not a religious requirement. If it is not a religious requirement, the question of discrimination does not arise.

It's not rocket science.

[johnfás]

I would be of the opinion that she should be allowed to wear the ring.

However I think where the technical argument comes in is that the Muslim faith (in a certain interpretation granted) requires women to wear a headscarf. Similarly others religions might require adherents to wear a turban etc. In the case of Christianity there is no such religious requirements. In short, it is not against Christianity not to wear a crucifix or a ring, it is merely one's personal expression of their faith. This is in contrast to the position of a Muslim woman who would be seen as breaking her religious rules in not wearing a headscarf.

Thats just my reading of the technical argument. However, I'm all for her wearing the ring.

I also presume the reason she wasn't allowed wear it was not because it was a religious item but like the lady in BA that it was a general policy on jewelry.

[Insider2007]

"A teenager fighting for the right to wear a religious symbol at school has accused teachers of discriminating against her Christian faith.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, has been banned from wearing a so-called chastity ring engraved with a biblical verse because her school says it breaks the uniform policy.

The High Court was told that the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, stopped her and several other Christian girls from wearing the rings on the basis that the school uniform code did not allow the wearing of jewelery.

But Muslim and Sikh students had been allowed to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, as part of their faith.

Lydia said in a written statement that, although proud to be a pupil at the non-denominational school, "it does not afford equal rights to Christians".

Millais school head teacher Leon Nettley said in reply there had been no discrimination - the ring was "not a Christian symbol, and is not required to be worn by any branch within Christianity".

From Sky News website:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...271734,00.html

Yes they were right to ban the ring. The headscarfs and bracelets are religious requirements for Sikhs and Muslims. The ring in question is not a religious requirement. It is simply a statement of opinion, no different to wearing a badge about a favourite pop star, or a standard piece of jewellery. There is no comparison. The headscarves and bracelets are perfectly allowable for religious reason in dress codes. Decorative rings are not. It is a non-story.

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

There was an episode of South Park that showed the prophet Mohammed. That scene was not shown on tv, but a later scene that involved Jesus ************************ting on people was shown without any problem. Seems like a double standard to me.

[johnfás]

Yes they were right to ban the ring. The headscarfs and bracelets are religious requirements for Sikhs and Muslims. The ring in question is not a religious requirement. It is simply a statement of opinion, no different to wearing a badge about a favourite pop star, or a standard piece of jewellery. There is no comparison. The headscarves and bracelets are perfectly allowable for religious reason in dress codes. Decorative rings are not. It is a non-story.

It is not quite accurate to say there is absolutely no comparison. It all depends on one's reading of the situation. Just because it is not a religious rule held by a Christian denomination it may be a requirement of her own personal faith.

Under that circumstance it all becomes very complicated because it becomes a matter of which faith you recognise as legitimate. Do you have to have a certain number of adherents who all claim to hold a similar view in order to make it a requirement of their faith etc.

[johnfás]

There was an episode of South Park that showed the prophet Mohammed. That scene was not shown on tv, but a later scene that involved Jesus ************************ting on people was shown without any problem. Seems like a double standard to me.

That is true. If a cartoon similar to the one about the prophet Mohammed which sparked the controversy last year, were to appear but was mocking Jesus Christ, I would hazard a guess that there would be very little controversy about it and those who did protest would not be given great credence by society.