The Ring Thing

Muslim Garb OK, Christian Ring Verboten

By Chuck Colson, Christian Post Guest Columnist Friday, June 29, 2007

Lydia Playfoot wanted to wear a ring to school—a ring that symbolized her commitment to remain chaste until marriage. But school authorities said no—and punished her for wearing it.

It's an example of the growing hostility to the Christian faith in the public schools—both in Great Britain and in America.

Lydia Playfoot belongs to an organization called The Silver Ring Thing, similar to the American True Love Waits program. The ring is engraved with a verse from 1 Thessalonians, warning believers to avoid sexual sin.

But Lydia's high school in South London has a rule against jewelry—and forbade her to wear the ring. Lydia sued. She pointed out that the school allows Muslim students to wear a head covering called the Hijab. And students of the Sikh faith are allowed to wear religious bangles.

In response, the school argues that distinctive head-garb and bangles are requirements of Islam and the Sikh faiths. By contrast, it says, a purity ring is merely an expression of religious belief.

Well, Lydia disagrees. She told the court, "The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the . . . purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint." This message is "'counter cultural' and contrary to societal and government policy," she said.

This is not the first time British Christians have gotten in trouble for wearing small symbols of their faith. Two years ago, a 16-year-old was suspended from her school in Derby for refusing to remove a cross and chain to comply with a jewelry ban. And this year, a 13-year-old was told to remove her crucifix and chain because they breached health and safety rules.

Health and safety rules? Unless you're a vampire, just how dangerous can a crucifix be?

British Christians have also come under attack by British Airways. Nadia Eweida, a Heathrow airport check-in worker, was suspended without pay for refusing to remove a crucifix. British Airways claimed the crucifix violated the company's dress code—the same code that permits Muslims and Sikhs to wear headscarves and turbans. Eweida is suing British Airways for religious discrimination. As she put it, "Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith."

She's right. When British authorities and employers make a distinction between religious requirements and religious expression, one has to wonder why they won't make distinctions between ordinary jewelry and jewelry that symbolizes religious faith—especially when they bend over backwards to accommodate other faiths.

To permit required religious garb while forbidding discreet symbols of religious faith is, in effect, a form of discrimination against Christians and Christians alone.

It is, to use a term loved by secularists, intolerant.

The same types of attacks are occurring in the U.S. As I write in my new book God and Government, Christians at some public schools are having to fight for the right to leave school for religious holidays without being punished.

You and I need to be aware of the attempt to silence even the quietest Christian messages—even as our society goes the extra mile to be sensitive to other faiths.

Lydia Playfoot is right: Rules about clothing and jewelry are less about accommodating religious requirements than they are about silencing Christians.

_________________________________________________

From BreakPoint®, June 27, 2007, Copyright 2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. "BreakPoint®" and "Prison Fellowship Ministries®" are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship