Another day in the life of...

I found this earlier today on Yahoo! News whilst perusing the site on my lunch break:

LONDON (Reuters) - A teen-ager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her commitment to virginity lost a High Court fight against the ban Monday.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, says her silver ring is an expression of her faith and had argued in court that it should be exempt from school regulations banning the wearing of jewelry.

"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," Playfoot said in a statement.

"I believe that the judge's decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith."

Playfoot's legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.

Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.

Playfoot's parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, a religious group which urges abstinence among young people.

Those who sign up wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4," a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin."

During the case, Playfoot's lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, West Sussex, breached her human rights to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewelry.

They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

Playfoot said in her statement she would consult her legal team to consider whether to appeal.

I'm an opinionated sort, and this kind of saddened me. So I posted a bulletin about it on Myspace saying, "Maybe it's just me, but something strikes me as wrong when - regardless of what country it is - someone isn't allowed to wear something (that is by all means discreet) because it symbolizes their faith.

I'm not religious myself. But really, that's just not fair. She's proud of her beliefs. People should just leave it be."

Got an interesting response back from someone on my list who was born and resides in the States...but I had forgotten that they're also a legal citizen of England:

From the perspective of a British National - I completely agree with this decision.

First, in the United Kingdom there is a compulsory uniform policy so there already exists a limit to personal or religious expression. There are exceptions made to clothing, jewelery or other adornments that are requirements of a particular faith.

Things like the muslim headscarf and the hindu bindi are allowed because they are required as part of their religious practice. Burkas, while required in some traditions are prohibited for safety issues. The wearing and display of Christian symbols (or Jewish ones) are not required as part of the faith and are thus prohibited.

For Britain, it's all part of maintaining a uniformity in schools so that time and resources can be spent on education rather than fighting a constant political and philosophical debate.

This uniformity is one of the reasons that the UK has a significantly superior public school system to that of the United States.

Food for thought, no?