22 June 2007

Subjective Relativism

I have mentioned the High Court case of Lydia Playfoot previously, in the Lydia Playfoot holding her '1 Thessalonians 4:3-4' purity ringbroader context of religious double standards. However, I am today struck by Millais School's claim that the chastity ring is not an essential part of the Christian faith and it is therefore no breach of the sixteen-year-old's human rights for them to demand that she remove her ring or else face expulsion.

Surely in this age of "tolerance" the point is not whether a chastity ring is an essential part of the Christian faith but whether the ring is an essential expression of Lydia's Christian faith. Given that she has been wearing it since the age of fourteen, as a sign of her faith-based commitment to sexual abstinence before marriage and faithfulness to God, then I suggest that it is — and on that basis alone she should be permitted to wear the ring as a symbol of her religious beliefs.

What's right for Lydia might not be right for you — but, then, isn't that the point of relativism?

5.30pm UPDATE: Judgement in the case has been reserved to a future date.