You might have heard about a big legal battle happening in England now about whether a “purity ring” signifying a commitment to chastity before marriage can be worn in violation of school uniform rules. The case involves a 16-year-old girl named Lydia Playfoot (I swear I'm not making that name up) who doesn't want to take off her "purity ring" while she’s in school. Here’s a brief from the NY Times:

The case offered a counterpoint to a broader discussion concerning Muslim women who wear the full-face veil known as the niqab. But it also revealed stirrings of resentment among some members of Britain’s Christian majority, who say they are the victims of discrimination over how they display their faith.

Keep Sweet: For Jesus

The young woman, Lydia Playfoot, said her school, at Horsham, south of London, had told her that the ring broke the school’s rules on uniforms and jewelry.

But Ms. Playfoot argued that the prohibition breached her right to express a religious belief. Not only that, she said in a statement to the court, Sikh and Muslim pupils were permitted distinctive dress to show their religious identity.

Ms. Playfoot belongs to a British branch of an American-based evangelical movement known as Silver Ring Thing. Both her parents work for the branch, according to its Web site, www.silverringthing.com.

Two Guys At A Silver Ring Thing: should they have to take off their rings to take the SATs?

“The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the S.R.T. purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint, which is ‘countercultural’ and contrary to societal and governmental policy,” Ms. Playfoot said in a written statement to Britain’s High Court.

“It is this message from the Judeo-Christian position that is suppressed: exemptions are allowed or permitted for other messages,” she said, arguing that her school “doesn’t offer equal rights to Christians.”

Her remarks showed another aspect of a tangled debate here that has largely centered on concern among British leaders that the Muslim full-face veil has become what Prime Minister Tony Blair called a “mark of separation.” That led some Muslims to say they were the object of discrimination.

But Ms. Playfoot’s remarks suggested that Christians like her see themselves as being treated unfairly.

Much of the debate hinges on whether the purity ring is a religious requirement.

In a statement to the court, Leon Nettley, principal of the school, Millais, said, “It is not a Christian symbol, and is not required to be worn by any branch within Christianity.”

Full Story

Now, I think we all know how I feel about sex. I mean, I think it’s important to have an understanding of the consequences of sex, and I really hope people think seriously about all kinds of things before they jump into bed with someone else, but I cannot in good conscience endorse chastity. The only situation in which chastity seems to make any sense to me is when someone is getting married incredibly young. If you marry your high school sweetheart the day after your high school graduation, then waiting is not such a big deal. But in a world where people are marrying later and later, asking people to wait for physical affection is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

That said, let the girl wear her fucking (or, not fucking, I guess) ring! No, it’s not an obligatory religious garment or piece of jewelry, but it’s a big deal to her, and it’s not like chastity is an offensive or otherwise problematic virtue. A girl who says she doesn’t want to have sex in high school—isn’t that a great thing? Shouldn’t we applaud this girl for being ballsy enough to walk around wearing something that probably makes her pretty unpopular with the gentlemen of the senior class?

I don’t know anything about British law, so I have no sense of how likely it is that this girl will win the case, but regardless, I’m appalled by the whole thing, not least because it’s giving the Silver Ring Thing people more exposure than I’m comfortable with.