I find
this case - a girl who's taking her school to court for the right to wear a so-called
purity ring - profoundly annoying.
The girl argues that the ring - which is supposed to remind her to stay "sexually pure" - is a religious item, so she should therefore be allowed to wear it, in the same way that a Sikh would be allowed to wear a turban or a Muslim woman a headscarf.
To which I say (and isn't it a pity that I'm not a High Court judge)...
This whole thing is moronic.
I heard Lydia Playfoot (the girl in question) on the radio this morning, and she was arguing that she needs to wear the ring because she "follows the bible". Well, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that wearing a rather tacky looking silver ring is key to being a practising Christian.
And why the need for a constant reminder to stay pure anyway? If she takes the ring off, will she be unable to control her sexual urges entirely? Will she leap upon her fellow students in the maths class, for instance? If so, yes, by all means, please do keep the ring on. If not, could it be that the ring is more of an evangelical tool than a purity aid? Could it be that her pastor father has had some influence in her desire to bring this case to the high court?
Plus, of course, aside from my general distaste for religious fundamentalism (whether it's Christian, Muslim, or any other religion) there's the whole issue of how useful abstinence-based programs actually are in curbing teen pregnancy rates and sexually transmitted diseases. Lydia says that it's important she continues to wear the ring because so many teens are acquiring STDs and falling pregnant, but I suspect - and
this study bears this out - that a teen who is relying on their religious faith to stop them having sex is not going to use any protection if they do end up getting carried away in the heat of the moment.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out. And I must say, I think I'll lose a bit of faith in Britain's sanity if the courts rule in her favour.