Silver rings and things

[yrieithydd]

atreic posted about a girl who's complaining about the school not letting her wear her "silver ring" although they let people of other faiths wear religious jewellery and symbols. Thus she is claiming that she is being religiously persecuted against here and her father even claims its because the school don't link the counter-cultural message of no sex before marriage.

It seems to me that there are at least three separate issues to be discussed here.

• The school's uniform requirements
  
• What constitutes religious persecution
  
• The value of abstinence campaigns and external symbols such as the ring
  

The School's uniform policy

Many, if not most, schools have some sort of uniform policy. From the point of view of clothes, there is something to be said for having a uniform as it hopefully reduces pressure to have `the fashionable clothes' which tend to be expensive and so single out the poorer kids. From the point of view of jewellery and other accessories, the arguments are more the health and safety grounds. We were only allowed to wear (two)* studs and this limitation to studs was a compromise as I think the school would have liked to ban them altogether, but this would have stopped people piercing their ears as they are supposed to wear something for a few weeks after they have been pierced. The argument was that especially in PE there was a risk a larger earring being caught and pull down thus ripping the earlobe. We were also not allowed to wear necklaces and I suspect rings though I can't absolutely remember. We weren't in a particularly ethnically diverse area and so the issue of muslim dress etc didn't arise.**

Since I was confirmed (aged 13, in year 9 of school), I've tended to wear a cross on a chain. However, as this was against uniform policy, I did not start wearing it everyday until I went to sixth form. At secondary school, I ended up wearing a cross stickpin on my blazer. I was never entirely sure whether this was within the school rules or not, but as it was joined by the menigitis ducks my form tutor was selling that year (to raise money for his mayoral**** charity) and in year 11 by my prefect's badge, they didn't complain. This was my compromise between wanting to wear a cross and necklaces not being allowed.

In this case, the school allowed certain religious items to be worn and have said that they would have allowed a crucifix (and I assume a plain cross) under that provision. The thing that caught my eye in the article was that they claimed various other non-permitted items where not commented on. If there is a policy it ought to be implemented consistently.

*Later defined as one in each ear. Boys were not supposed to wear ear-rings you see. This was silly, I agree. Why should girls be allowed studs but not boys? If it's safe for one it's safe for the other.
**We did have two Pakistani pupils (from the same family), but they were both male. There were also two black pupils (also siblings)*** and two people who were I think of Indian extraction (not related both my year). I think my year was the most diverse as four of those were my year and I don't think that that's just because that's the year I knew best, but maybe there were a few others, but 4 non-white people in a year was a lot (there were only 100ish a year).
Actually, I'm not sure we'd've had both two Pakistani pupils and two black pupils at the same time. There was one of each in my year, but that was the younger of the Pakistani pupils and the older of the black pupils. I know the black girl's brother was two years younger (so only started when we were year 9) but I can't remember how much older the Pakistani brother was; I think older than my brother who was year 11 when I was year 9 so he would have left by the time the black lad started.
****He was mayor of his parish council which was not the area where the school was.

Persecution

To claim religious persecution on this matter seems to me to be evidence of a siege mentality from certain Christian groups which are far too ready to see persecution in any opposition or criticism. The problem with this is that it tends to preclude a sensible debate on the issues of concern and make Christians look bad. I'm not convinced that Jerry Springer: the Opera was a good thing, but I think the reaction by some Christians did more harm than the Opera because of how they reacted and the language used. Too many issues get conflated in arguments like this; some good, some ridiculous but the good ones get ignored in the debate because everyone is so busy laughing at the ridiculous ones. Being overly defensive and closing down the debate is bad. If Christianity is true, God is big enough to withstand the criticism but not allowing debate fuels complaints about religion as societal control not truth.

The silver ring thing

I'm somewhat torn on the issue of `abstinence campaigns'. In priniciple, I basically agree with them. I do think that sex is best within the context of a committed relationship (and to me that committment is framed in context of marriage) because it is a very powerful and intimate thing and can cause much pain and many complications. I think the current myths surrounding sex and sexuality can be harmful to many people. Relationships are about more than sex but sex is very powerful in creating a bond (even, I think if you think it's only casual) and that can create an artificial intimacy without a good context which causes much pain. There is also the fact that (even with contraceptive measures) sex can always result in pregnancy (contraceptive measures not being 100% reliable) and that has implications of its own. There are also the issues about sexual transmitted diseases. My mum, I think, had a sensible approach to the whole `no sex before marriage' thing. She never just said `Don't' but explained why she thought like that, but let us make up our own minds as to how we were going to act.

There was an interesting TV programme last year, (I think) which I didn't see but about which I heard, about an abstinence campaign with some inner city kids which appeared to take a sensible approach from what I heard and did a lot for the kids' self-esteem and behaviour because it encouraged them to see past the myths that our society propagates about sex and make sensible informed decisions about what they were doing and what they wanted. It seems to me, that many of the larger-scale campaigns don't have the groundwork and are just another form of pressure on kids and a source of guilt if they don't live up to that pledge. It's not really an informed decision which can stand up to the pressures of situations of desire etc.

The question of sex should not be divorced from discussions of healthy relationships and encouragement and help to become mature people not unhealthily dependent on other people or things. Unfortunately, far too much of the discussion does precisely that and gets hot under the collar about the obvious issue (whether it is sex before marriage or whatever) without an explanation of that position and the wider context in which it makes sense. Modelling good relationships and supporting people in them (especially now when many people's experience is that marriage doesn't last) is far better than soundbites about `no sex before marriage', but much harder and less headline grabbing. We need more good stories about healthy long-lasting relationships and how to maintain them, rather than just the simple romances.

On the presenting issue of the ring being worn at school. What's the point of it and how does it actually help? Is it just an attempt to look like we're doing something without the deeper effort of teaching and support and love on this issue? Or am I unusually bloody-minded (and not particularly chemically driven about sex) and does a tangible thing like a ring actually help some people to stick to their decisions? But I don't think that that makes it a religious symbol and gives someone the right to claim it trumps uniform policy.

Comments

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting that, it was really interesting.

Thanks. When caliston was teasing me about my novel as I composed it this morning I wasn't sure anyone would be interested especially as no-one wants a postcard from me or wants to come to my house-warming.

I had vaguely thought about the silver ring and the wedding ring, but not in quite that way. I don't know enough about the SRT to know which finger the ring is supposed to be worn on. I would also say that I doubt the silver ring has reached the culturally understood level yet (at least in the UK).

Now, will LJ eat me comment this time.

[miriammoules.livejournal.com]

little finger, and certainly M was curious as to whether my 2 silver rings were about that...