This story from Dallas Texas has me scratching my head.
To summarize things, a woman just got a dress code waiver for her daughter, based on 1 Timothy 2:9, so her daughter is not required to tuck in her shirt at school. For those of you, like myself, who don't have the Epistles memorized here's the verse:*NIV version. I'm afraid I am having trouble understanding how tucking in a shirt is less modest than letting the same shirt fly free.I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
But what really gets me from this story is the way this woman argued her case:"I feel I am being persecuted for being a Christian," she told the board before the vote. "There will be a day of reckoning, and you will have to answer to God."
There's a nasty part of me that wants to ask this woman how she feels about an Islamic woman being required to bare her face for a driver's license photo.
The article brings up the question of does this very loose interpretation of the written scripture mean that in effect almost anything goes once a parent justifies their objection based on religious texts? I really don't have any great driving need to see shirts tucked in (Though I do happen to believe it is the more modest option.) and really couldn't care less about why this parent feels so strongly about this. But being persecuted for being a Christian? For the love of green aphids, get you hence and read what real persecution might be!