Skip to main content.
« Previous entry: Cartooning: various things from the internet | Main page | Next entry: Brief report from the environment conference »

June 22nd, 2007

Do Christians have the right to break the rules?

big hat

This is of course to do with the case of the girl who wants to wear a Silver Ring Thing Ring to school but the school says no and now there are newspaper articles and things.

I admire the girl in question for her desire to stand up for her faith, but I don’t agree that she has the right to break the rules of her school. It’s a not-unrelated situation to the British Airways lady with her cross, who I also didn’t feel should have been allowed to break the rules of her airline.

To me it has to come down to how essential the particular items of clothing or jewellery. If it is absolutely 100% central to your faith and without it you are not following the ordinances of your religion you should be allowed to break the rules and wear it. But if it is not I think you should abide by the rules, like it says in the Bible.

If the particular brand of Christianity that the girl follows says that wearing a special ring is 100% essential to the faith then it is a bit of an odd brand of Christianity and should be frowned at.



This is a single Cartoon Blog entry, posted by Dave on Friday, June 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm.

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

Know someone else who might enjoy this post? Click here to send this to a friend. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The technologically advanced may like to trackback from another site, follow responses to this post via the RSS 2.0 feed, or bookmark this post on del.icio.us or digg.

25 Responses to “Do Christians have the right to break the rules?”


  1. thomas bushnell, bsg says:

    i don’t recall the bible saying anything about “following the rules”. sounds like a british habit to me.

    i can’t accept that it must be “absolutely 100% central”. a skullcap is not “absolutely 100% central” to judaism, after all.

    why should it not be that restrictions of religiously motivated dress must be “absolutely 100% central” to the school or the airline? why should it not be wildly wrong for a school to act as this one has?

    June 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
  2. Simon Richardson says:

    I think (though this may be v. v. presumptuous) that Dave may be referring to 1 Peter 2.13,14. Which makes it not so much British as Christian. Though I think that she should be allowed to wear the ring. No real argument to offer. Byeee!

    June 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
  3. ~c. says:

    Having only read the linked article, I say bravo to the girl. Keep your chin up and your ring on. Christians are supposed to trouble the status quo. The irony is that she is learning tons more through this ordeal than without it.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 am
  4. cogidubnus says:

    The trouble is, this particular argument isn’t really at all about any valid religious (eg the sikhs turban) or even quasi religious (eg the ghurkas topknot) symbol…It’s actually down to one person chosing one item on a schools (not unreasonable) banned list, on which to make a stupid stand…Nearly all schools have (and have had for over 30 years that I know of) a ban on jewelry on (again not unreasonable) health and safety grounds.

    Translate into modern non-pc language and the question really revolves around whether or not the little slapper can wear a knuckleduster to school?

    June 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 am
  5. Blogula Rasa » Blue State: Life is Good. Red State: Life Sucks. Why? says:

    We seem to be exporting our prudery with some sort of silver ring thing dingus, which is rather a shame.  Also, it sounds distressingly like a CTR ring, which brings us back full circle (in a way). This post started because I read a progressive group blog based in Utah (the poor bastards). …

    June 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 am
  6. Anne says:

    Completely with you on this one Dave. I get very tired of hearing Christians in this country complaining about being “persecuted for their faith”. (Not that I’ve heard the girl in question claim this, but it’s heard too frequently anyway.) Being told to conform to school uniform rules is not persecution.

    And yes, Christians should trouble the status quo - but pick issues that really matter.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
  7. Neil says:

    I think if the ring is pretty she should be allowed to wear it, if it is ugly and crass then not. No Bible verses to back up my view i’m afraid.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 am
  8. Chris Clark says:

    It seems to me that we cannot agree as to what is central to our faith or not as we are so highly individualistic that evrybody does their own thing.

    I think it is a shame that we don’t all agree on.. say a cross as our recognised symbol which we all try and wear…but I heard a prominant journalist say if it was an empty cross it was fashion, with Christ on it it was religious…a bit harsh on those of us brought up in a prot. tradition.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
  9. jody says:

    Hi

    I wrote a little about this on my blog.

    the girl is using Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which is very much in place to prevent people from being persecuted.

    I personally find it slightly distasteful that it is being used to allow a teenager to wear jewellry to school, something which has been a students vs teachers issue for, like, ever. Not something I felt it was my human right to do, however I still did it. It’s called flouting school rules, something that all teenagers do.

    I bet the school are kicking themselves for not doing what all other schools in the history of time have done - put her in detention and then ignore it.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
  10. MadPriest says:

    Dave
    As usual you are both sensible and theologically spot on.
    In fact, we should celebrate our freedom in Christ by insisting on our right not to wear anything Christian churches and pressure groups try to get us to wear. There is no difference between this ring and a tee shirt with a Bible reference on it. or God Hates Fags or whatever. It’s just a political statement and, as such, probably harms the mission of the Church, far more than it helps it.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
  11. Peter Kirk says:

    Dave, would you give similar advice to the school about a Muslim girl who insisted on wearing a headscarf? After all that is not 100% essential to Islam, it can’t be because many Muslim women go unveiled. But the real issue here is whether every religion is treated equally, or whether certain religions are privileged because they are feared.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
  12. jody says:

    I would think that the headscarf is more universally accepted as something integral to islam than the silver ring thing.

    I guess I would also want to say that surely surely surely, it is not the outer garments that define us? and Jesus gave up numerous ‘rights’ by choice in order to show us what it means to follow him. - this argument stands regardless of whether it is ‘fair’ or not.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
  13. Ian M says:

    Don’t forget that the girl’s parents are the UK leaders of the ’silver ring thing’ movement. Smacks of publicity stunt to me.

    June 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
  14. Mark Bennet says:

    Silver is a rather ambiguous substance in the Bible - approved in respect of the ornamentation of the Temple at Jerusalem, but disapproved for idols, for example. Maybe the best thing to do would be to sell the ring and give the proceeds to the poor?

    June 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
  15. phil goodacre says:

    can’t help but wonder if some commentors think she is misusing article 9/the Bible simply because they don’t like ‘the silver ring thing’ concept, and the fundamental evangelical types behind it….

    would the school take the same stance if this were a wedding ring? she is 16 after all. would the school really force a married person to take off their wedding ring?

    June 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
  16. Deanj says:

    Reminds me of the woman who wanted to wear a burka when she applied for a driver’s license in Florida.

    ….But that’s ok, since she’s not Christian, right?

    June 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
  17. Andy says:

    Well the ring isn’t really a symbol of Christian faith, and since it goes against school rules, then surely she shouldn’t wear the ring?

    Or is it not that simple..?

    June 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
  18. Room515 » Who do school rules apply to? says:

    This is taken from Cartoon Church - based on the case of the girl taking her High School to court for not letting her wear her “purity ring”. Its good that shes standing up for the thing she believes in, but surely as its not really a symbol of the Christian faith, and as its against school rules - then maybe she should just take her ring off? …

    June 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
  19. ~c. says:

    Speaking of issues that really matter…what about the cause that is behind the girl’s case? Is there substance to her concern or is it smoke for somethnig else?

    June 24th, 2007 at 2:03 am
  20. Kirk says:

    I think the fact that many people who are Christians have never heard of this ’silver ring thing’ thing, myself included, goes to show it is not central to the Christian faith. I think. Whether or not it is central to *her* faith is a different question…

    …and a worrying one, too.

    June 24th, 2007 at 5:51 am
  21. Robbie says:

    Interesting story. I only know what was in the linkied story, and I have no idea bout English or European law, but the point that stands out to me is where the school says “a Christian pupil would be allowed to wear a crucifix.”

    I’m not sure wearing a crucifix is any more integral to Christian faith than wearing a purity ring. As others have pointed out and as my Lutheran beliefs suggest, sumbols might point to faith but do not embody the faith itself — even the symbol of the cross, the focus of so much of my theology, is not required physically (today, that is; it was there at the Crucifixion, of course!). If the school has a policy that simply forbade all jewelry unless absolutely required for one’s spiritual welfare, it might be OK (though then there could be questions as to why religious expression is allwed but not other forms of expression). But making a distinction between a crucifix (and I presume an empty cross would also count?) and a chastity ring, neither of which required but the one more traditionally recognized, seems to be worrisome and might actually end up supporting the girl’s case more than anything else.

    Of course, coming from the eprspective of a rather libertarian American, the most sensible policy would seem to be simply allowing all jewelry so long as it meets criteria unrelated to content. (And the girl really risks expulsion for wearing a ring? My gooness…)

    June 24th, 2007 at 7:46 am
  22. jakstar says:

    I’ve never heard of this ring thing and to be honest do not see it as an integral part of my Christian faith.
    I wear a plain cross, it was a present from my husband, i wear it with pride as an outward sign of my inward faith.
    But, that’s for me - not for other people. the symbol of the cross is a remider of the price christ paid for us.
    The fact Jesus is not on the cross on a piece of jewellery is fine - after all He is no longer nailed to the cross - he died ans rose again.
    I wear jewellery, but it is not my religion - thbe slipping into Idolitary!
    This ring thing debate is giving Christians negative publicity and is distracting us from our true calling.
    Not to tell the world about some daft piece of jewellery - but about Christ love, peace and grace.
    As Christians we also live under the law of the land, this ring thing debate sounds like a typical teenage rebellion (got a teenage girl of my own).

    June 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
  23. thomas bushnell, bsg says:

    i wonder why this idea that students should not wear jewelry. like anything, it could be overdone or disruptive, but i don’t see that one ring is either.

    are teachers allowed to wear jewelry in these schools? or is jewelry only offensive on students, because it (horrors) suggests that students are the equals of the teachers?

    June 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
  24. Ed Stych says:

    Let’s get back to the question in the headline, “Do Chrisitans have the right to break the rules?” Of course they do if the rules made by mere mortals are wrong. Jesus broke the Sabbath rules that were made by men. Many great Christians broke man-made rules … Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr. (read his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”), Bonhoeffer, etc.

    OK, this ring issue is petty compared to most of the Christian rule breakers that immediately come to mind. But so was Rosa Parks picking the “wrong” seat on a bus. I’m glad Rosa decided to break that rule.

    The underlying issue in this ring case is that it appears Christians are being treated differently than Muslims and Sikhs … an issue that was barely touched on in the linked article. If all religious garb was banned, this girl and her family wouldn’t have a problem adhering to this … in my opinion … silly school policy. The perception is that some people have more rights than other people.

    These are real gray areas in countries that respect religious liberty. Here in America we have Christian doctors refusing to perform abortions, Christian pharmacists refusing to provide drugs that result in “abortions,” and Christian bus drivers refusing to drive buses that carry ads for gay magazines. We also have Muslim cab drivers refusing to transport anyone carrying a bottle of wine and Muslim cashiers refusing to wait on any shopper buying pork products.

    It’s tough to draw the line in a country that respects religious liberty … but it’s a whole lot better than living in a country that has a state religion, and there are plenty of them out there.

    June 30th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
  25. Speaker of Truth says:

    I do not want to comment on the case of Lydia Playfoot, who lost her court case claiming the right to wear a Christian chastity ring at school. See here, here and here for some Christian reaction; see also Lydia’s own blog. …

    July 25th, 2007 at 12:25 am