So I guess ths one's out too.? 
Posted on 07/17/2007 2:40:09 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
...
Then she should’ve complained/sued about the inequality in the application of the rules instead of suing the school so she can wear a ring.
That, and what she did are two entirely different things.
And as for the questions of “well what if she was married”. The school says “no jewelry”.
Good grief.
So I guess ths one's out too.?
Stop pretending I’ve said things I haven’t said. I have no tolerance for liars.
One more time. I did not say it’s an integral part of every denomination. I said it’s an integral part of her religion.
If you can’t address what I’ve said, and you have an overwhelming urge to accuse me of saying things I haven’t said, just don’t address me at all.
Playfoot....Dick Morris?
She’s beautiful with or without the ring.
She's already a Christian,and the crucifix is as integral to the Christian faith as the Star of David is to Judaism. What's your point?
Seriously? You really don’t get it? LOL
Okay. The ring is an integral part of her religion. You’re saying she shouldn’t be allowed to practice her religion, because it differs slightly from the State sponsored religion. In order for her to have the freedom to practice a religiion, she must convert to the State sponsored religion. She should not be allowed to practice any religion which is not sponsored by the State.
You really don’t see what’s wrong with that?
The school rule is "No Jewellry".
But because one Christian brat says she wants to wear a ring, you are prepared to cast the school rule about jewellry away.
Who needs rools. Let everybody wear any ring, as long as they say "It's my religion".
Do you ever read the articles?
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.Almost anybody can claim "expression of faith" exemption
Which of the follwing would be allowed? Which would not be allowed?
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
The Muslims and the Sikhs can, but not the Christians. I know that suits you just fine, and some people agree with you, but rational people don't.
>>Could you be more specific? Are you a member of a holy order? Is this a Carmelite Scapular Metal? Do you wear it outside your clothing?<
Sorry I’m late.
I am concecrated by the Louis De Montfort method. So are my girls and yes we it outside of our clothing.
So who deems it correct?
I understand that she is a Christian. Is it your contention that her wearing a crucifix constitutes a change in her religion?
No problem... I'm pretty short on time today, too.
I guess the short answer would be that the C of E would likely recognize the brown scapular as integral to the Christian faith, as it was an established tradition long before their split with Rome. You'd have to ask an Anglican Bishop for a more official ruling.
I question whether an exemption should be necessary, however. It is unusual to wear the scapular outside of clothing — the Pope doesn't. A scapular worn under clothing would not violate the school's policy. Insisting that it must be worn visibly would be an act of scrupulousness.
Have you worn a scapular for a long time? Unless it’s pinned, they end up creeping out. You see them constantly at my parish, and ladies adjusting them.
We have actual Scapular Medals. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel on one side, Sacred Heart on the other with our small chains attached to the slide.
But the problem with this is that someone could see it as simple jewelry. It’s not. I would have to get the exemption. It’s silly. If they allow headscarves, which ARE optional to Muslims.
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-some-muslim-women-wear-head-scarves.htm
“Further, unless one lives in a restrictive, theocratic country, wearing head scarves is optional. Many Muslim women also find it saves time to don a scarf rather than to style the hair. They argue that women who must spend so much time before a mirror each morning to style their hair are experiencing oppression by fashion dictates.”
If you had read the article, you would know that the position you described is the position her lawyers took in the case.
It looks like you're the one who doesn't the article
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.
Virginity is central to Christianity - it was to Mary ....
and God, and the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.
Is it your contention that the crucifix is a ring that can be worn on her finger, and symbolize her promise of purity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.