Tweet
In an act certain to enrage Jesus, a hellbound judge has refused to allow a nubile Christian teenaged girl to continue to be a virgin. Can anyone still say they doubt that the Clinton regime left us a nightmarish legacy of activist jurists, hellbent on destroying Christianity?
This fine young girl's story just breaks my heart. I cannot imagine that a court would rule that Miss Playfoot has to lose her virginity to a "Sikh Mudslim", just because she expressed her Christian faith by keeping her legs tightly closed.
Teenager loses purity ring legal battle
Teenager Lydia Playfoot today lost her High Court challenge over a ban preventing her from wearing a Christian “purity ring“.
Sixteen-year-old Lydia Playfoot claimed the ban at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, was an “unlawful interference” with her right to express her Christian faith.
Lydia is one of a group of Christians at the Millais School who wore the ring engraved with a Biblical verse as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.
In court her lawyers claimed that her secondary school, which allows Muslims and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.
The school denied her claims, arguing that the purity ring is not an integral part of the Christian faith and contravenes its uniform policy.
At a recent hearing at the High Court in London, human rights barrister Paul Diamond, appearing for Lydia, argued that the secular school authorities had no right to set themselves up as arbiters of faith and “cannot rule on religious truth”.
The rings stem from the “Silver Ring Thing” (SRT) movement which started in the Godly United States. SRT rings are worn by Christian teenagers to symbolise a pledge not to have sex before marriage and have led to an impassioned debate over religious expression and sex education.
Mr Diamond, who also represented Nadia Eweida in the British Airways ” cross” case, argued: “Secular authorities cannot rule on religious truth.”
In her statement, Lydia said: “As a Christian I do not agree with sex before marriage.
“I believe I have a right not only to state my Christian views on sex, but also to demonstrate my Christian faith and commitment to God and my future husband not to have sex before marriage, through the wearing of a purity ring.
“I, along with 11 other well-developed Christian girls at Millais School, decided before God that we would make a commitment not to have sex before marriage, and as a sign of that commitment, to wear a simple silver ring from the ‘Silver Ring Thing’ movement.”
She said: “The wearing of the ring was, to me, a demonstration of my Christian faith and values, which are based on the Bible - which clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong and therefore not God’s best for us.
“Despite the fact that Muslim girls at our school wear headscarves, and Sikhs wear Kara bangles, the school refused to allow me to manifest my belief through the wearing of a ring.
The teenager concluded: “As a Christian though, I live for another Kingdom, and serve another King, Jesus Christ, and therefore I shall continue to live and speak for what is right and true.”
Teenager Lydia Playfoot today lost her High Court challenge over a ban preventing her from wearing a Christian “purity ring“.
Sixteen-year-old Lydia Playfoot claimed the ban at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, was an “unlawful interference” with her right to express her Christian faith.
Lydia is one of a group of Christians at the Millais School who wore the ring engraved with a Biblical verse as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.
In court her lawyers claimed that her secondary school, which allows Muslims and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.
The school denied her claims, arguing that the purity ring is not an integral part of the Christian faith and contravenes its uniform policy.
At a recent hearing at the High Court in London, human rights barrister Paul Diamond, appearing for Lydia, argued that the secular school authorities had no right to set themselves up as arbiters of faith and “cannot rule on religious truth”.
The rings stem from the “Silver Ring Thing” (SRT) movement which started in the Godly United States. SRT rings are worn by Christian teenagers to symbolise a pledge not to have sex before marriage and have led to an impassioned debate over religious expression and sex education.
Mr Diamond, who also represented Nadia Eweida in the British Airways ” cross” case, argued: “Secular authorities cannot rule on religious truth.”
In her statement, Lydia said: “As a Christian I do not agree with sex before marriage.
“I believe I have a right not only to state my Christian views on sex, but also to demonstrate my Christian faith and commitment to God and my future husband not to have sex before marriage, through the wearing of a purity ring.
“I, along with 11 other well-developed Christian girls at Millais School, decided before God that we would make a commitment not to have sex before marriage, and as a sign of that commitment, to wear a simple silver ring from the ‘Silver Ring Thing’ movement.”
She said: “The wearing of the ring was, to me, a demonstration of my Christian faith and values, which are based on the Bible - which clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong and therefore not God’s best for us.
“Despite the fact that Muslim girls at our school wear headscarves, and Sikhs wear Kara bangles, the school refused to allow me to manifest my belief through the wearing of a ring.
The teenager concluded: “As a Christian though, I live for another Kingdom, and serve another King, Jesus Christ, and therefore I shall continue to live and speak for what is right and true.”
Comment