My brother recently contacted me about a problem he has been having with his daughter's high school.
My niece plays violin in the high school orchestra. They are going on a field trip this weekend in the New York city area, to perform and to attend performances.
On Sunday morning, they will be performing as part of a church service in Newark New Jersey. This part doesn't bother my brother, or me. But the school has made it clear that the entire orchestra will be required to sit through the church service, prior to the performance. When he informed them that he and his daughter are atheists, and that anyway it isn't approriate for the school to create a situation where students are required to sit through a church service, their response was "we aren't doing anything illegal."
There is prior history to this situation. The school takes the position that during a school concert, each member of every performing group has to be able to see every other performing group. There aren't enough seats in the auditorium even for the musicians alone, so the school has moved the winter and spring concert to a local church that has enough seating for the students and the rest of the audience. The concert takes place under a massive cross. It also takes something like 4 hours, since there are many performing groups.
The schools my brother and I went to didn't operate this way. The musical groups waited in a classroom until their time to come on stage, and then filed off as the next group came on. My brother has been arguing with the school for several years that they should either break up the concert into smaller concerts, stage the groups in classrooms and let them listen to the music on a speaker, or change the venue of the concert to a secular one.
Any comments on either situation?
[ November 02, 2007, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:they will be performing as part of a church service in Newark New Jersey. This part doesn't bother my brother, or me. But the school has made it clear that the entire orchestra will be required to sit through the church service, prior to the performance.
So-- there will be a church service prior to them performing, AND a church service in which they perform?
That doesn't seem right. I wouldn't be happy about that, either.
As far as having to perform beneath a cross, I don't know that there's too much to be done. Are there other venues that could feasibly be obtained?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Are they performing as part of a service or is this an after-service concert at a church?
Requiring public school students to sit through a church service as part of a school function is so CLEARLY a violation of the first amendment that it is almost shocking.
Now, holding a school event in a church because there is not enough room at the school may not be a problem. I'm more torn on that one. It would be best if the school either built adequate facilities or tried to find a more secular location, but the presence of religious symbols is not quite the same as requiring students to participate in a religious ritual....which still has me floored.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If you're okay with them performing as part of the service, then I think whether or not they are required stay for the whole service should depend on the physical arrengements of the space, when their part is, and generally whether or not they could leave or come in in the middle without being disruptive. If they're seated in the chancel (up front) and it's a large group that would take 5 minutes or more to get into place and again to exit, then I can see the point of having everyone seated ahead of time and staying in place until the service is over. I assume that no one has suggested they be required to participate in the service (other than providing their music).
Edit to add: if they're required to play for the church service, I think that's a problem. The above was predicated on what I thought I read that the musician in question had agreed to play as a part of the church service.
We have secular groups that like to use our church sanctuary for concerts because of the great acoustics. They do it at times other than the worship services, though, and I don't think we've ever had a public school group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gut reaction: requiring them to attend the church service is inapporpriate. Using a church as a venue with a large visible cross is not.
I think, at first blush and without doing necessary research to confirm, that the legal response would line up the same way: the first violates both the establishment and free exercise clauses; the first does not.
Edit: the legal analysis assumes this is a public school. The appropriateness analysis assumes this is a public school or secular private school.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So-- there will be a church service prior to them performing, AND a church service in which they perform?
I'm not exactly clear on that. My best understanding is that at the end of the church service, the students will perform for the same congregation that was attending the service.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My best understanding is that at the end of the church service, the students will perform for the same congregation that was attending the service.
I don't think this would be unconstitutional per se if the students were not at the church service itself as part of the school activity, although I can see certain factors (such as choice of music) making it unconstitutional.
Again, rough analysis here. I reserve the right to change my mind. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In that case I think it would depend on whether they are playing music as the last part of the service, or whether they are playing a concert and the members of the congregation are invited to remain seated after the service for the concert.
If the former, I think having them seated ahead of time is legit, IF having them play at all is acceptable.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't think this would be unconstitutional per se if the students were not at the church service itself as part of the school activity, although I can see certain factors (such as choice of music) making it unconstitutional.
Yeah, I don't see a problem with giving a performance at a church, per se. It's the sitting through the service that's a problem.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Did the school give any particular reason why they can't simply arrive after the church service?
Realistically, I suspect that there will be enough people in the congregation leaving after the service and before the concert starts that it will not be particularly disruptive if a few musicians arrive at the same time.
It certainly could be more disruptive if they got bored during the church service and started playing a GameBoy, playing cards, or reading "The God Delusion" or "God is Not Great" during the service Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think it's unreasonable to attend the service prior to performing, but it requiring the students to do does seem to approach a few lines.
I'm a very "pro-separation" person though I wouldn't be upset about my kids sitting through a service prior to performing if made sense to do so to avoid disruption to the service etc. But, I could see where it could be problematic for other parents and if I were the band leader I'd probably try to find a way to avoid that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: In that case I think it would depend on whether they are playing music as the last part of the service, or whether they are playing a concert and the members of the congregation are invited to remain seated after the service for the concert.
From the perspective of the congregation, I don't think there's really a difference. They are at church, and at the end of the service a group performs. No one has to define whether that is "part of the service" or "a performance after the service."
From the perspective of the school, it makes a big difference. The reason they are there is to perform, not to attend a service. The church can call it whatever they like, but the school has to call it a performance, and they shouldn't be requiring the students to sit through the service.
If the church considers it too disruptive to take 5 minutes to have the students set up their instruments, then the school shoudn't be there at all, in my opinion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: From the perspective of the congregation, I don't think there's really a difference. They are at church, and at the end of the service a group performs. No one has to define whether that is "part of the service" or "a performance after the service." [/QB]
I think you could not be more wrong, on this point.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Edit to add: if they're required to play for the church service, I think that's a problem. The above was predicated on what I thought I read that the musician in question had agreed to play as a part of the church service.
I actually have a problem with this even if they are not required to play in the service. Obviously, I don't have the right legal terminology, but here's what I feel about it. The fact that this is a school-sponsored activity and that the orchestra is not, by nature, a religious organization makes it inappropriate, in my opinion, to play as part of a church service or to sit through one. (The venue itself isn't the problem.)
The reason I phrase it that way is that I don't have a problem with school clubs that are religious in nature, such as a Jewish group or a Christian group, as long as there is equal access and no compulsion to join. Orchestra, on the other hand, is about music. Those joining under the pretext that they will be learning to play an instrument should not be coerced into sitting through a religious service. (And even without required attendance by all orchestra members, the fact that the orchestra itself is going is a form of coercion through peer pressure and possibly even through standing in the group -- I believe there are first, second, third chairs etc. Also, it would leave a student out of all rehearsals related to the religious event.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I think you could not be more wrong, on this point.
I don't understand at all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Christine: I tend to agree. I was basing the above on Glen saying (in the first post) that he didn't have a problem with the orchestra playing as part of the church service, so I was starting from there.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Glenn, a church service has a narrative flow. At least, a liturgically based church does. I suppose some types of churches might just be a series of things that don't flow into one another.
Imagine that during a musical theatre performance you had to stop the show before each song while the orchastra set up. Doesn't work.
And the flow has a definite beginning, builds to a high point, and finds resolution. After which, staying for a concert could be fun, but it would clearly not be seen as part of the movement of worship. To try another analogy, it's the difference between watching the cast commentary on a DVD after the movie is over vs. suddenly having the characters near the end of the movie turn to the camera and start commenting on the experience of making the movie.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
This reminds me of alot of battles I had with my choir director when I was in high school.
On the first subject, it would make sense if the orchestra had been invited to attend the service prior to the performance. I could even understand if their teacher wanted them there simply because he/she needs them onsite or close nearby prior to the performance. Logically, you don't want a whole bunch of kids showing up at different times. But a room should be set aside for those students who don't want to attend the service. Perhaps they are not believers or maybe they're just the typical high school kid who should be catching up on their reading for English or studying for their French exam. Another teacher or volunteer parent could easily supervise some of the students in another room or outside location (like the courtyard or something.)
As for the church location, its not an ideal situation and attempts should be made to find somwhere more suitable. And besides, how many people really want to sit on hard wooden pews for a four hour concert?
I think requirings students to watch their classmates is a good show of support and a good learning experience, but it doesn't sound like its realistic. I've done choir and dance shows where this was required and the constant moving of students coming in and out is disruptive to the rest of the audience. During the best shows, we were in onstage classrooms warming up and dealing with the inevitable last-minute dressing problems (boys missing black socks, girls finding holes in their gown, etc.) It would probably be better to break the concert into two nights making it part of the grade for students to attend both their performance and the second night.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, Dana, I think I get it.
Building on your musical theatre analogy, my perspective is that this music would be like an overture or underture. That is, mostly a filler, or bonus. The service would reach its resolution, (you call that the end) and then there's a performance. I'd call that tacking on some music to the end of the service, but to you the service is already over.
To me it's just a matter of scheduling. If the church has a service at 10:00 and another one at 11:00, the "service" is the activity in each time slot, whether there's a performance in there or not.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Maybe I'm just backward wired than most people. I don't really see this as an insult to the Aethist student. I see this as an insult to the sacredness of the service and the building. I would consider sending a letter of apology to the minister:
Dear Rev. XXXXXX
On XX/XX/XXXX I will be part of the musical program presented after your services. Please do not take offence an my being there, as it is mandated by my class. You see I am a man of faith, though that faith differs drastically from yours and your congregation. I will not profain your services with lies--even lies of ceremony, (kneeling, praying, or any other congregational participation that your services partake of).
I will sit quietly through out the service, entertaining myself in some way that you shouldn't find offensive, and I promise that I shall not attempt to convert any of your congregation, unless they try to convert me first.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to the music performance at your place of worship.
Sincerely XXX YYYYY NCA (Non-Christian American).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: ... Perhaps they are not believers or maybe they're just the typical high school kid who should be catching up on their reading for English or studying for their French exam.
Man, you had a tough high school. The typical high school kid at my school would be sleeping in on Sunday (if they didn't go to church).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I actually have a problem with this even if they are not required to play in the service.
Those joining under the pretext that they will be learning to play an instrument should not be coerced into sitting through a religious service.
These two things don't make sense together.
--------------
I would have a problem with this, too, the whole situation, I mean. I don't have a problem at all with the orchestra* being engaged to perform at a church, or even as a part of a church service. However, attempting to compel the members to remain through the service whether they want to or not should not be done by a public school. Morally speaking, I mean, I don't know the legal reasoning.
As for performing under a giant cross, I don't really see a problem with that either, so long as there are no other nearby and available venues. The church offering the space should not be required to hide itself for the school's sake, and exactly how much money should the school be required to spend to avoid atheists even coming near crosses?
*The problem with this is, of course, that the orchestra could be engaged with the permission of the teacher, without the consent or even informing the students. I think that students should have the option of safely opting out of performances like this, which might be controversial on religious grounds.
-----------------
You know, if the school continues to be a bunch of schmucks regarding your brother's quite reasonable complaints, there is always the option of your niece simply, when the performance is over, packing up her stuff on her own and walking out. There would most likely be fallout, though...and whether or not that would be advisable depend on the atmosphere of the student body, and how tough she is.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Glenn, yep, that's why I asked if they are actually playing as a part of the service or not. I thought of a better example -- if they were providing music as part of the service it would be like having an orchastra play the recessional music at a wedding. You can't stop after the kiss and have the bride and groom stand there while the orchastra sets up to play the song for them to march out to. (Well, you could but it would be a bad choice, IMO).
Again, this is a practical point aside from the question of whether or not a public school orchastra should be playing as part of a church service at all.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The church offering the space should not be required to hide itself for the school's sake, and exactly how much money should the school be required to spend to avoid atheists even coming near crosses?
What about Jews, Muslims, or Jehova's Witnesses?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
As a musician, former kid, and former music teacher, I have mixed feelings about this situation. I played with an Air Force Band for what was billed as a "God and Country Rally" in Danville Virginia once. After the rally started it became apparent that it was, in reality a large Baptist revival, sponsored by a local Mega-church. I was uncomfortable, and most members of the band, including the Commander expressed dissapointment in the "staff work" involved in scheduling the concert. But, I still get angry about the attitude of some parents who saw religous significance in performing vocal music in Latin or any music with a Christmas theme. Much great music from the Western tradition has a religous theme. It is a part of our shared tradition. The same goes for those parents who objected to performing "Hava Nagila" ("Hill of Spring") in a Spring (they though Easter) concert. Great music belongs to all of us and can be enjoyed as music without subscribing to the veracity of the thematic material. The same goes for a venue or an audience. A commodious, pleasing setting with an appriciative audience would be enjoyed by any musician. But, if the performance is expected to be an affirmation of the sectarian worship experience then it is 100% out of line.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... there is always the option of your niece simply, when the performance is over, packing up her stuff on her own and walking out.
Heh. As an alternative to "What would Jesus Do?" we now have "What would House Do?"
But seriously, I don't think that would work. As I understand it, the religious rituals come before the performance, not after.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I actually have a problem with this even if they are not required to play in the service.
Those joining under the pretext that they will be learning to play an instrument should not be coerced into sitting through a religious service.
These two things don't make sense together.
I'm not sure what incompatibility you're seeing. Let me try to rephrase, though....I have a problem with a public school orchestra playing at a church service even if the students are not required to play -- that is, even if they can opt out -- because they are still under a compulsion to do so. I also think that there is a certain compulsion for them to sit through the service, even if this is not a requirement.
Maybe you weren't clear on how I was differentiating requirement and compulsion?
quote:I would consider sending a letter of apology to the minister:
What kind of church do you go to that would have a problem with a non-believer sitting in on your service? I don't think I'd want to be a part of that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually House would bring in a portable TV, or borrow the hand held gaming system from Coma Patient 204 and play them loudly throughout the service until it was his time to perform.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What about them, Glenn?
Now, perhaps if the church is being paid for the space (and I have no idea how common that is) beyond simple maintenance and upkeep costs, then things could be arranged, I think.
But if the church isn't profiting from letting its space be used that way, why should they be required to cover up for everyone else's sake? You're starting from the assumption that they should.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Maybe you weren't clear on how I was differentiating requirement and compulsion?
If they are able to opt-out, how exactly is there compulsion?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I believe that he's referring to peer pressure.
i.e. even if the kid had a "technical" choice to avoid the church service, the kid would probably feel great social pressure to come anyways, to fit in. It would take a kid with unusual confidence to be the first kid to stand up and say no.
Thus he's really just saying that the church service should (at most) be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't think it's unreasonable to attend the service prior to performing, but it requiring the students to do does seem to approach a few lines.
I'm a very "pro-separation" person though I wouldn't be upset about my kids sitting through a service prior to performing if made sense to do so to avoid disruption to the service etc. But, I could see where it could be problematic for other parents and if I were the band leader I'd probably try to find a way to avoid that.
I agree with Matt's take.
From personal experience I and three other clarinetists were asked to play some mozart pieces during communion at a Lutheran church service.
Because of my own church tradition I felt that Mozart music was not the most appropriate for communion but if it did not bother the congregation I saw no reason why I should refuse. There were only four of us but we still had to sit in the back upstairs seating area. A tiny space was cordoned off for us to sit and setup our stands. We had to attend the entire service which was all of 1-2 hours, or stint took place somewhere in the middle.
Having us enter, setup, tune, and play in the middle of the service would have been a bit on the rude side and that is in regard to just four players. An entire orchestra is a very noisy beast even when the players are simply holding their instruments speechless.
Having players in any number enter and prepare to play with the rest of the orchestra at any point mid meeting to me is just not reasonable. It's far more reasonable to require all the players to setup prior to the service and be ready to go when their queue arrives.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:But if the church isn't profiting from letting its space be used that way, why should they be required to cover up for everyone else's sake? You're starting from the assumption that they should.
No, I'm starting from the assumption that the school should not be there to start with. There was a time, perhaps when American society was homogeneous enough that it simply might not occur to the school that having a "christmas concert" was an offense to anybody. But that time is long past. The school might merely be looking for a convenient concert venue, but it might also be attempting an underhanded endorsement of Christianity.
Your assumption that the cross would only offend atheists is naive. Most court cases on religion in schools are brought by minority religions, not atheists.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Glenn,
quote:Your assumption that the cross would only offend atheists is naive.
It's a good thing I didn't make that assumption, then.
quote:But that time is long past. The school might merely be looking for a convenient concert venue, but it might also be attempting an underhanded endorsement of Christianity.
Ahh, a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory. Well, I suppose it's possible. But you're not really offering much in the way of alternatives here, Glenn.
How much money should the school spend to avoid giving offense when they have to 'farm out' sitting space for large events which include the often-large families of students?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:But if the church isn't profiting from letting its space be used that way, why should they be required to cover up for everyone else's sake? You're starting from the assumption that they should.
No, I'm starting from the assumption that the school should not be there to start with. There was a time, perhaps when American society was homogeneous enough that it simply might not occur to the school that having a "christmas concert" was an offense to anybody. But that time is long past. The school might merely be looking for a convenient concert venue, but it might also be attempting an underhanded endorsement of Christianity.
Your assumption that the cross would only offend atheists is naive. Most court cases on religion in schools are brought by minority religions, not atheists.
More than that -- these cases aren't about offense. It's not anyone's place to make sure the decorations in and around their buildings are pleasing to everyone. Actually, that's impossible.
This is about establishment of religion. When a public school, one funded by public money, takes its students to a religious event they are promoting a religion.
I don't like participating in religious ceremonies that aren't the ones I grew up with -- in my case, Catholic. People can make fun of Catholic masses, traditions, and rituals all they want but it's my comfort zone. If my school had asked me to go to another type of Christian service, I would resent this. It's MY choice which church I go to, not just if I go to church. This is what the framers of the constitution wanted, too. I don't honestly think they gave much thought to atheists or even Jews or Muslims. They wanted to make sure that no Christian church gained undue power and influence over the others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm confused as to what Glenn and Rakeesh are arguing about. Way back at the top of this page, Glenn said:
quote:Yeah, I don't see a problem with giving a performance at a church, per se. It's the sitting through the service that's a problem.
When Rakeesh raised the comment about offending atheists, it was in the context of performing below the giant cross.
Now Glenn says, "I'm starting from the assumption that the school should not be there to start with."
Is "there" in the last quotation "there at a church with a giant cross when the school has rented/borrowed the space for its own performance" or is "there" in the last quotation "there at church during or immediately before or after a church service when the school is performing before attendees of such service"?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:When a public school, one funded by public money, takes its students to a religious event they are promoting a religion.
Not really. If I were a student and I were taken to a Buddhist ceremony as part of some school trip, I would almost certainly view it as a learning experience and not as some attempt to convert me to Buddhism.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Ahh, a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory. Well, I suppose it's possible. But you're not really offering much in the way of alternatives here, Glenn.
It's not a question of theory, it's a question of propriety. And I offered (or I should say my brother offered) the option of having several small concerts with a few musical groups each, or staging the groups in classrooms so there is room for the families of the musicians in the school auditorium, or just finding another venue. I made no such suggestion (as you did) that the church should have to cover the cross to avoid offending atheists. Is three alternatives not enough? How many are required? Actually another suggestion was made that the school could hold the concert as an assembly during school for the students only, so they could see each other perform, and then hold a separate concert for families as an evening concert.
The fact is that the aspect of the concerts being held in church was only part of the issue. These concerts are 3-4 hours long and most families walk out as soon as their kid is finished performing. The kids have to find seats among the pews after performing and get up from pews to set up for each new musical group. Maybe I should have left that whole part out of this thread, but the issue of the religious environment was a previously history that is related, so I thought I should include it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I'm confused as to what Glenn and Rakeesh are arguing about.
So am I.
quote:When Rakeesh raised the comment about offending atheists, it was in the context of performing below the giant cross.
Now Glenn says, "I'm starting from the assumption that the school should not be there to start with."
This is in reference to Rakeesh's coment that I'm starting from the assumption that the church should have to cover up the cross, which is ridiculous. It's perfectly appropriate for a church to have a cross.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: ... Perhaps they are not believers or maybe they're just the typical high school kid who should be catching up on their reading for English or studying for their French exam.
Man, you had a tough high school. The typical high school kid at my school would be sleeping in on Sunday (if they didn't go to church).
There were days when I was at school by 6:30am and didn't leave until close to midnight because my choir director was a rehearsal-nazi. We perfected the art of sleeping on risers and studying between various musical numbers.
Course, there's a large correlation between "church kids" and "choir kids" so I still fondly remember my muslim best friend and I goofing off while our director led the pre-performance prayer despite very serious rules in Texas banning his participate.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Update:
I just talked to my brother on the phone. He called the church to ask for details, and it turns out the orchestra will perform 3 times, at the beginning, middle and end of the service, with the music serving specific parts of the service.
The pastor of the church got a little nervous about the conversation, and my brother says he made it clear that he doesn't have a problem with the church's participation in this event, it's the school that is the problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I understand the qualms - really I do, I am all for separation of church and state - but practically, it would be impossible to giave a decent education in music without at least exposing students to Christianity. So much of western music was written either specifically for church services or at least in that context that there is going to be that exposure. Try studying - or singing! - Bach without coming face to face with religion.
I think it is important and quite possible to explain context and allow students to participate to their level of comfort.
And, honestly, if students are going to continue to be musicians, they should probably get used to sitting through religious services in which they are performing.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think we are simply dealing with a matter of logistics. It is extremely difficult to move a large group of kids with instruments into and out of a room in a quiet, quick, and orderly fashion. There is certain to be much tramping of feet, and muttering, plus clanging and banging of instruments. Then that is compounded by the time for everyone to get their music out and get settled.
That seems far too distracting and far too mood breaking, as well as time consuming, to be practical.
I seriously doubt that, while you are compelled to sit there for reasonable logistical purposes, you would be compelled to literally partake in the services; you know, all that standing, sitting, kneeling stuff.
However, a gig is a gig. If you have a job to play a performance at a location, then you have to conform to the logistical needs of both the performance artistic aspect and the general practical aspects.
You might at some point be ask to perform at a location where alcohol is being served, but certainly you would not therefore be forced to also drink alcohol. But the alcohol, just like the church, aspect might come with the territory.
And though you may object to alcohol, if you are committed to performing, then you can not pick and choose the jobs you get. Like I said, a gig is a gig.
Now, if you do go to this performance, you should be able to listen to your IPod or read a book while the service is going on. As long as you are not being disruptive, there shouldn't be any problem.
As to performances using a church as a performance hall, I don't see why that is a problem. They have simply found an adequate, comfortable, attractive location for the performance. That fact that it is a church is irrelevant, and you certainly can't expect them to tear the church apart and remove all religious symbols just for one performance.
It is not uncommon for churches or schools to rent our their space for assorted community meetings. It could simply be a convenient place to hold a business meeting or for some type of group to meet. A school renting out a church is no different than a church renting out a school. It is simply convenient available public space.
I can understand needing the orchestra there and in place ready to play at the beginning of the service. The alternative would be very disruptive. However, I seriously doubt anyone would be required to take part in the service.
I really don't see this as any different than a Democrat orchestra member being asked to play at a Republican fund raiser. You are not being asked to subscribe to a philosophy, you are simply being asked to do a job and to do the job within the logistical constraints set up by the organizer.
At least, that is how I see it.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Music as part of a service isn't a performance - it's a liturgical activity.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
i'm going to simply SHOCK everyone here, and say:
If my kid was required to sit through a church service as part of a school activity, I'd throw a massive fit at the school, and open up seven kinds of hell on their ass through my lawyers.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I don't see any reason why it can't be both.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No one is required here. They can opt out.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Good joke.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I don't see any reason why it can't be both.
I meant to add a "just" before the word performance.
Plus, that statement supports your side of this issue.
quote:No one is required here. They can opt out.
At the expense of being allowed to participate in a significant extracurricular music activity - and extracurricular activities are a government benefit.
Being denied a government benefit based on one's exercise of a fundamental constitutional right is a prima facie violation of the equal protection clause, unless it satisfies the strict scrutiny test.
This means that the denial of the benefit must be the only way for the government to further a compelling state interest. I can't see any circumstances where what Glenn has described would satisfy that test.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My wife came from a small town that had 4 bars and 3 churches. That has seemed to add a special spin to my point of view.
I love to spin, so here goes.
Change the word Church in the above to Bar. Change Cross to Beer Sign. Change service to happy hour. Would that change any of your attitudes about the appropriateness of what the public school music groups are doing.
I know that a church is nothing like the lowly bar. But to some people, they would rather go to a bar than to the wrong church, and the wrong church is any church that isn't their church. Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, LDS Big deal if its another church? You bet it is. Wars have been fought, and many, many valiant people have died rather than go to the "wrong" church.
A lot more have died to stay out of the "wrong" church than have died trying to stay out of a bar.
So lets look at the arguments with our alcohol related view.
"You can't get a good musical education without some exposure to Christianity/bars." True. Is highschool the time and place to get that exposure?
"If you are going to be a musician than you had better get used to sitting through things you don't like, such as Church services/Happy Hour." Makes sense to me, but again, is High School the right age for such experiences?
(If we make this venue a Gay bar, this becomes even more educational, for you can't really understand the modern music scene without knowing about homosexual culture)
"If the only venue in town is the Church/Bar than what is the school to do? Hiding the Beer Signs/Crosses is just too much trouble for a donated space like that." Is it really?
"Bringing musicians and thier instruments on stage would be disruptive to the flow of the services/happy hour." At a bar the band usually leaves thier instruments on stage while on break. I imagine that instruments would be safer in the pews of a church, but that may depend on the church.
Still bringing the choir in during the middle of the event may or may not be good for the service/happy hour. The bigger question, is having the choir at this venue good for the choir itself. We are not concerned here with what is best for the church/bar, but what is best for the musicians, especially those of different beliefs.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: i'm going to simply SHOCK everyone here, and say:
If my kid was required to sit through a church service as part of a school activity, I'd throw a massive fit at the school, and open up seven kinds of hell on their ass through my lawyers.
I think I'm gonna go sit over here with Paul. If the Goodlet's school tried something like this, she would not be performing in that event at an absolute minimum. And if they attempted to dock her grade for non-participation, they would absolutely have an attorney or five on their rears.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: No one is required here. They can opt out.
If the performance is tied to a class? Probably not. That's why I made the comment above about grades being docked. If the Goodlet misses a performance, she loses a grade level. So a performance held at a church or synagogute - or even a bar since that word-switch suggestion was made - would cause her to lose a grade for my refusal to allow her to participate.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Every Christmas season the choirs of the surrounding high schools are invited to have a concert on temple square, in the tabernacle. It's certainly voluntary.
Do you object to that? --
I think it's unreasonable to object. The point of sitting there is not to indoctrinate - it's so 50 teenagers clumping around don't destroy the meeting they were invited to sing at. No one is being asked to take communion - just to sit there. I think a little tolerance is called for.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I don't object to *voluntary* participation by students. It's not a school-mandated performance, and those of us who don't hold the same faith as the venue at hand can choose to stay home.
And I don't see it as much of an invitation if it's a mandated participation event. Invitation implies (at least in my mind) the ability to decline. When a kid's grades are dependent upon her performing at a specific event, there's no ability to decline.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Sure, opting out is fine.
I also think that's kind of lame, especially opting out of the temple square concerts. It's mostly singing - if you object to hearing or singing all religious music, you just cut out the majority of musical history. It's like wanting to study art but refusing to go to the Sistine Chapel because you're not Catholic. Add in respect for those to whom it is important and a little academic detachment and I think it'd be fine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Every Christmas season the choirs of the surrounding high schools are invited to have a concert on temple square, in the tabernacle. It's certainly voluntary.
Do you object to that?
I can conceive numerous scenarios that are consistent with your description where I would object on first amendment grounds and numerous scenarios where I would not.
It's not clear from your description whether the concert is simply in the tabernacle (which I have already stated I would have no objection to) or is part of a service. Moreover, it's not clear if school resources are used in preparation and, if so, how much. Are all the songs religious, or are secular winter themes included?
I would have to look at the detailed answer to all those questions and more before saying if I objected.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Wow. Excluding my candy-coated "uncomfortably close to the truth" brand of humour, thats three times Dagonee has made concrete, a point that I would have made given more time to phrase it properly.
This kind of agreement is refreshing due to its relative rarity when it comes to my appreciation (or lack thereof) of legalese Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Music as part of a service isn't a performance - it's a liturgical activity.
I think that, in practice, it is fuzzier than that. Lots of church musicians are paid to play or sing and are not themselves worshipping or even a member of that religion when they sing for a mass or for high holy days services. It is a "gig". From the point of view of the musician, it could well be a performance. Sometimes, if the musician is a member of that religion, they are both worshipping and getting paid to "perform" at the same time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That being said, for any church I'm even remotely familiar with, I object to a public school music group sitting through Sunday morning services and performing songs that are part of that service.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Javert-
I have no objection to students singing in a holy place. I have no objection to students volunteering to sing at a service. I have a problem with the school arranging for students to sing as part of a service, and I have a SERIOUS objection to a school using its power as an agent of the state to force students to sit through a religious service. Any religious service. The kids could be singing at my temple, and if the school required those kids to stay for the service, I'd help any parent who wanted to sue the school.
The state should absolutely never use its coercive power to hold people at a religious event.
I think its unreasonable to object to that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that, in practice, it is fuzzier than that. Lots of church musicians are paid to play or sing and are not themselves worshipping or even a member of that religion when they sing for a mass or for high holy days services. It is a "gig". From the point of view of the musician, it could well be a performance. Sometimes, if the musician is a member of that religion, they are both worshipping and getting paid to "perform" at the same time.
In that case, a public school is providing a commercial service in direct support of religious worship - a much bigger no-no under the establishment clause.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Excluding my candy-coated "uncomfortably close to the truth" brand of humour, thats three times Dagonee has made concrete, a point that I would have made given more time to phrase it properly.
This kind of agreement is refreshing due to its relative rarity when it comes to my appreciation (or lack thereof) of legalese
Legalese FTW!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, that wasn't meant to be a comment on the appropriateness what this school is doing, just commentary on the dual life of church musicians.
edit: although, come to think of it, some private music schools have "used" our liturgies as performance opportunities for their students. I am reasonably sure it wasn't obligatory. Churches need musicians; musicians need gigs. It is difficult to keep them entirely apart.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
When I was in fifth grade, my orchestra conductor invited us to perform at his church. It was completely voluntary, and they made provisions for us to show up towards the end of the service if we didn't want to sit through the whole thing. It turned out that all (six or so) of us that came stayed for the whole service before performing at the end. We enjoyed it quite a bit, but it had no bearing whatsoever on our grade. It was just a neat opportunity to play in public, and I think it was handled appropriately.
The next year, my middle school orchestra did an outdoor concert in the public housing development across the street from the school. Attendance was mandatory and it counted for a grade, as the concert was during the school day. I was more nervous about this one, because it was a rough neighborhood. (There had been a drive-by the previous year). However, we still ended up enjoying it quite a bit, and I think it was also appropriate.
The situation in this thread sounds pretty inappropriate, and I would probably object to it on principle, even if I would otherwise be willing to play at the church. There's nothing more flagrantly in violation of the constitution than compulsory attendance of a church service.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
If my child and I are given the choice to opt out of a performance without it affecting her grades, then I have no objection to the venue at hand. But the way I read the original post, and the way my own school district works, is that student participation in a school-sponsored event that ties to a class is NOT an opt-out situation. If you're in the group, you must be there. In Glenn's case, if his niece is on the trip, she must sit through service to perform. I don't know whether she has the option to stay home entirely. And this is why I have a problem with it. There doesn't seem to be any alternative for students who have opposing belief systems.
For the record, I consider myself agnostic. We do not attend church of any kind outside of weddings and funerals. I do see the academic value in a venue like the Sistine Chapel (to use your example). Because my school district takes special pains to not include religious music in the programs (so as to not offend anyone or to imply a preference for any particular belief), and alternate venue is not an issue for us, my objection to the situation here is entirely academic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:edit: although, come to think of it, some private music schools have "used" our liturgies as performance opportunities for their students. I am reasonably sure it wasn't obligatory. Churches need musicians; musicians need gigs. It is difficult to keep them entirely apart.
I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Because my school district takes special pains to not include religious music in the programs (so as to not offend anyone or to imply a preference for any particular belief), and alternate venue is not an issue for us, my objection to the situation here is entirely academic.
That's going to be tough as they get older. Or they are going to avoid a pretty huge and significant chunk of western music. And western culture in general.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't think anyone here is having a problem with the LOCATION of the performance.
The problem is that the students have been asked to be a PART of the service. They have gone from school orchestra to church orchestra. The public school has no business being a part of that, not even if they allow the students not to participate. There is never a consequence-free "opt out." It just doesn't exist. I tried to explain it a couple of times. Dag did it via legalize. Either way is the same. This crosses a line.
I'm with Paul on this -- I'd raise ten kinds of hell and call in a team of lawyers. It's not good enough that my son can "opt out" with no grade penalty. He will not be denied participation in a school sponsored event because or a religious affiliation or lack thereof.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:(so as to not offend anyone or to imply a preference for any particular belief)
Heh, the funny thing is that this practice could arguably be construed as preference for one particular belief.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Heh, the funny thing is that this practice could arguably be construed as preference for one particular belief.
Which belief is advocated by the songs "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" or "Deck the Halls"?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Which belief is advocated by the songs "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" or . . .
Christianity.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Deck the Halls actually goes back to Pagan tradition. If you want to get nitpicky Christmas as a word indicating a holiday can be controversial as the word Christmas is derived from "Christ's Mass".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Really? Cause I don't feel that I'm advocating Christianity when I sing it. Christmas is not exactly a strictly Christian thing. You might as well sing "We Wish You a Merry Late December Holiday"
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Would you expect someone Jewish to sing "We wish you a Merry Christmas"?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Would you expect someone Jewish to sing "We wish you a Merry Christmas"?
Do you mean would I require a student to sing it? No, but not because I believe it's religious, but because I'd be inclined to accommodate any objections raised by a student over perceived religious content. I'd consider removing it from the lineup entirely if the objection was made early enough.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Really? Cause I don't feel that I'm advocating Christianity when I sing it. Christmas is not exactly a strictly Christian thing. You might as well sing "We Wish You a Merry Late December Holiday"
Hmmm...no, it doesn't flow. How about:
"We Wish you a Happy Winter...and a Cheerful New Year!"
Maybe not.
I can't actually think of anything in "Deck the Halls" that's remotely religious. I'm trying to remember the lyrics...deck the halls with boughs of holly...tis the season to be jolly...don we now our gay apparel...join the ancient yule tide carol..." Nope...it's all about the season, the winter, and the new year. Nothing Christian at all.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: ...don we now our gay apparel...
It's promoting the homosexual agenda!!!
--Enigmatic
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Matt P: If you reallize that it could be percieved as objectable religious content, why put it in the lineup to begin with?
Christine:
I personally know Christians that object to Deck the Halls on the ground of its pagan content. A Yule log was a pre-christian pagan tradition among Germanic peoples.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Matt P: If you reallize that it could be percieved as objectable religious content, why put it in the lineup to begin with?
Because a lot of things could be perceived as objectionable. If anything, I'd refrain from using the material that had obvious issues and be willing to accommodate students who had issues with less obvious ones.
I should note that I don't really have a problem with school choirs or orchestras playing religious music. I was just arguing that more secular pieces do not necessarily represent any particular belief as was suggested earlier.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I guess it depends exactly how literal-minded one is in either direction.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I appreciate your concern and I have thought about this for awhile before responding. I am a christian, so I had to change the situation around to try to put myself in your shoes. I don't think it is right for a public school to mandate attending church, and I am surprised that in 2007, someone in the school didn't think this was a bad idea. It sounds like lawsuit waiting to happen.
That said, you could take this opportunity to expose your child to other peoples point of view about religion. If I were in that situation with my daughter, I would be willing to take her to a temple, mosque, non-denominational meeting, etc. I would even take her to an atheist meeting just so long as it wasn't a group that was so anti-religion that we could construe the "sermon" as offensive. You could take this time to discuss others beliefs.
Anyway, good luck to you. I appreciate the tough position you are in. I hope it all works out.
Jack
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I worry that well-meaning adults end up messing things up for the kids because they get so caught up in the politics of issues like this. I really can't imagine there are many kids out there who would seriously feel pressured to change their religion simply because they perform as part of a religious service. (And in truth, if there are kids out there who would legitimately be upset about the prospect of attending the service of some religion they don't belong to, I think they would be the ones who would most benefit from doing it. When they grow up, they will have to interact with Christiains, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. every day. Sheltering kids from other religious views does them a disservice in my opinion, and Christians are possibly the most guilty of this in America. I'd actually support requiring kids to go visit a service from some religion that is not their own, as part of their education, even though I'm certain such a requirement couldn't fly in public schools.)
The net effect of bringing the politics of religion into this school-sponsored concert is, at best, that the church would lose out on getting to hear an excellent performance and that the orchestra would be stuck playing in a less-than-ideal place. At worst it could mean cancelling the performance, depriving both the church and the children of an opportunity, and making all parties unhappy - not to mention bringing shame down upon the atheist child, who is inevitably going to be blamed by his peers for the whole mess.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That's the thing, it isn't a "school sponsored concert". It a public school providing free music and participating in a church service.
entirely different ball of wax.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I meant to add a "just" before the word performance.
No problem. It's nice to be in agreement with you.
I guess the next question is: What (if anything) should be done about this?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I remember touring a cathedral in school, when a lady over the loud speaker asked to join her in prayer, and began reciting a prayer concerning the safety and well-being of America and its citizens, as well as those who put their lives in harm's way to make the world a better place (something along those lines). Nobody was required to pray, but most of us did so voluntarily. The intercom unit didn't say what God to pray to, so there were Jews, Christians, and others (at least a couple Buddhists, and a very moderate Muslim) praying the same thing at the same place. And then there were a few others who snickered through the whole thing and giggled about how silly everyone looked as they were praying.
I wouldn't say that in any way violates Congress establishing a law regarding the establishment of a religion, or inhibiting the free exercise thereof. If I were required to be present at a religious congregation for a school performance, I really wouldn't mind, unless the congregation in question was an extremist Al-Queda group or something. Being present for a school performance at a religious congregation does not mean participating in the worship service, or agreeing with anything the guy at front (priest? minister? preacher? pastor?) is saying.
Unless there are students in the group whose religion explicitly forbids its followers to enter a church of another religion, there really isn't too much to complain about.
"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."
(I actually started saying that before I learned that I wasn't the first to say that.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."
I can't disagree with that statement more strongly.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
It means that you can't seclude yourself from any idea that there is a religion out there that disagrees with you.
Because everyone knows that that's not true, and we might as well accept that there are other people who really do worship in a way that we do not.
This is why I'm not reluctant to attend a friend's Bar Mitzvah or listen to a Jewish sermon, read passages from the Qu'ran or research the continuity of the early Christian church.
Now I can see what you mean, Glenn, a lack of freedom from religion could imply that one is bound to a certain religion. This is not what I mean. The statement above only means that in the free exercise of religion, or choosing to abstain from worship, one cannot deny the existence of an alternate system of beliefs.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."
Well, we have both, actually. The Constitution includes a free exercise clause ("of") and an establishment clause ("from").
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Guaranteeing Freedom from religion? No. Some Religion is always out there ready to entrap you.
In fact, the only religion that is free is the religion of Ego. Belief that everything is yours, should be yours, and is only important in how it effects you, that is the only "free" religion.
No matter what religious denomination, including Atheism, and the ever popular "Simply Selfish Secularism", the Egotist belongs to, they believe they are getting away free.
Any religion worth its prayers should cost the believers.
That includes Atheism and Secular Humanism.
But I digress.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Really? Cause I don't feel that I'm advocating Christianity when I sing it. Christmas is not exactly a strictly Christian thing. You might as well sing "We Wish You a Merry Late December Holiday"
For a song such as "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", it really doesn't matter much what you individually think you're advocating when you sing it. I might wear a Nike shirt and not mean it to be a walking advertisement, but that's one of the things it is, just to look at it (or in this case, listen to it).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I guess the next question is: What (if anything) should be done about this?
If I were in your brother's shoes, I would start from the assumption (unless there is strong evidence otherwise) that this is a result of thoughtlessness rather than intent. They're going on a weekend trip, the organizers wanted to get as many experiences playing squeezed into that time as possible, and on Sunday morning you aren't going to find many options for concert venues. A church congregation is a ready-made option, easy on the organizers. That doesn't make it okay, but if he approaches the sponsor/teacher/director(s) and first makes it clear that he knows what a huge task organizing this kind of trip is, and that he appreciates the fact that they're trying to enrich the kid's orchestra experience with this trip rather than just having the regular concerts at the school, they might be more open to hearing his concerns, rather than getting defensive.
That is, of course, assuming he'd rather resolve this amiably if possible, rather than through the court system.
Posted by DeathofBees (Member # 3862) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Being present for a school performance at a religious congregation does not mean participating in the worship service, or agreeing with anything the guy at front (priest? minister? preacher? pastor?) is saying.
Being present for a school performance in a church building may not mean participating in the worship service, but what else does it mean when you ARE the worship service? What, is the music just background noise? It obviously means something to the members of the faith, or they wouldn't have come to the meeting.
I think it is entirely inappropriate for the school to have set up the gig in the first place. This is not a group of professional musicians. This is a public school group. Truly, it is beneficial for students to hear and study music from all parts of the world and from many different faiths. The education of a student of music would be lacking without that work. Performing that music in a secular setting also would be perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, as long as all involved understood the educational intent.
My problem stems from my own religious view on leaders of worship. It is the leaders who are inviting the congregation to worship with them. All those singing/playing/dancing/etc. are worshipping that deity, but it is those in the "performance" seats who are extending the invitation. I think it is inappropriate to ask public school students to be part of that leadership team, especially from the standpoint of the church! I am a member of a church that would never consider inviting someone outside the faith to assist in leading worship. Certainly, we invite nonbelievers to participate with the congregation, and their presence in the service does not require it, but we would not hand them the microphone. I could not belong to a church that would knowingly allow a professing nonbeliever to lead worship, even such a small part as playing flute or singing baritone with a group. It would be so false, so insincere, so not worshipful that it would have no place there.
I think it is beneficial to expose young people to other cultures, religions, and ideas for the purpose of gaining an honest worldview. I think it would be wonderful to encourage students to attend a religious service foreign to them. However, mandating such an encouragement is inappropriate. It is my philosophy that compulsory education is damaging to begin with, but that's another thread. I doubt the students in question would be harmed by their voluntary attendance as part of the congregtation in a service, but I am very much convinced that it is harmful to the spirit of holiness and reverence within the place of worship as well as the souls of the nonbelieving students for them to assist in leading worship. I understand there are many here who will disagree with me about whether that is actually taking place. Your place of worship may teach differently. I just know that if I had been asked to sing with my public high school choir as part of a service for any religion, including my own, I would have had to protest. It would have been offensive to me to have those fellow students who have openly expressed disgust for my faith and my God to be leading worship as an offering to that God just as it would have been offensive to my God for me to sing as an offering to an idol.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DeathofBees: I am a member of a church that would never consider inviting someone outside the faith to assist in leading worship. Certainly, we invite nonbelievers to participate with the congregation, and their presence in the service does not require it, but we would not hand them the microphone. I could not belong to a church that would knowingly allow a professing nonbeliever to lead worship, even such a small part as playing flute or singing baritone with a group. It would be so false, so insincere, so not worshipful that it would have no place there.
I understand that this is true for your church. Please understand that, as a pratical matter, it is not true, or at least not as clear, for in just my own, personal experience at least some portion of Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, UCC, Church of the Brethren, Baptists and Jews. There are varying degrees of what a non believer would be allowed to do. Usually, for example, a cantor might be a member of the faith (defining faith a little broadly - I cantored Catholic services as a Protestant) but I have sung with organists and choir directors who have been of different faiths or even atheists whose job it was to provide service music. And faith has rarely been an issue for baritone corners or flute players as long as they are professinal and respectful. I agree that such service is leading worship. I have seen and heard a lot of people doing a really good job of that even though they did not share that faith.
[ November 03, 2007, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion."
I can't disagree with that statement more strongly.
I think that's way to simple a way to sum it up, in both directions.
Freedom of religion in the first amendment certainly means freedom from certain instances of religion.
However, there are many circumstances where it doesn't mean freedom from exposure to or proselytizing from religion, even if government resources are somehow involved.
For example, anywhere the government allows a public forum for private expression can be used for private religious expression. This means that someone in a public park is not free from religion.
There are other examples. For example, public schools are not religion-free zones under the Constitution. Every schooling experience will have opportunities for private expression, and the school's power to exclude religion from such expression is limited.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Christine:
I personally know Christians that object to Deck the Halls on the ground of its pagan content. A Yule log was a pre-christian pagan tradition among Germanic peoples.
I personally know Christians who object to anything that has "pagan" roots on the grounds that they are completely ignorant of the meaning of the word and have somehow confused it with devil worship. Many Christians around here are uncomfortable with Halloween for this reason.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Really? I tend to dislike Halloween because it means there will be a bunch of little kids in disguise on my porch soliciting candy at hours that I want to get sleep! Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Are such Christians also uncomfortable with the pagan roots of Christmas?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I personally know Christians who object to anything that has "pagan" roots on the grounds that they are completely ignorant of the meaning of the word and have somehow confused it with devil worship. Many Christians around here are uncomfortable with Halloween for this reason.
I mistrust claims like these. I don't doubt the knee-jerk reaction you describe associates paganism with unsavory, even evil gods...but I do question whether or not if, once they were sat down and seriously asked the question, would say that paganism is equivalent with satanism.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I doubt most Christians know what Satanism actually is.
Edit: I am referring to LeVeyan Satanism, which is the most prominent.
Posted by miamiandy (Member # 8906) on :
I think that being forced to attend attending the service is illegal. Being forced to play religious music after a service is also illegal. That is forcing people to participate in a religion they don't believe in. However, having venues in a church is no big deal. Its just a big room where they can have everyone in it.
I personally also don't think one should be forced to attend religious services you don't wish to attend. Regardless of the age. I personally haven't been to a church service and think that at some point would probably be interested to go to one. Although, I would definitely not want to go not out of my own free will.
I am Jewish and while I do not attend services with frequency. I enjoy it when I do attend. I don't think anyone should be forced to attend a service even if they believe in that religion. So I think that in regards to attending the church service, forcing atheists isn't the only issue forcing anyone is the issue. Also, of course the separation of church and state which is sort of in the bill of rights as part of the number one ammendment. This means that they not only shouldn't but can't by law force someone to attend a religious service. They in fact shouldn't have even had the idea.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I see a problem with opting out of the Sunday performance - the trip includes more than just that performance. So if one wishes to opt out do they sit on the bus or in another room during the Sunday performance or do they have to opt out of the trip altogether? What if a large segment of the orchestra decides to opt out because of the requirement to sit through a religious service? What if all 7 violinists opt out? Yes opting out sounds good on paper but it can seriously disrupt a performance and at a minimum causes more logistical arrangements in order to properly supervise high schoolers for the duration of the service.
This was a very very bad idea on the part of the school/organizers.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yes opting out sounds good on paper"
really? I disagree. This is a school sponsored trip that requires for participation that students sit through a church service. There shouldn't be school sponsored trips that have that requirement. period. Opt out or otherwise.
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
Atheism confuses me sometimes, especially when issues come up like this one.
Suppose my public school chorus performs in a Buddhist temple. And the Buddhists come do yoga in a nearby church. We both learn about each other's cultures in an interesting way. Respect and love abound.
But I wouldn't dream of asking them to cover their Buddha, and I wouldn't expect them to want my cross covered, either.
I feel like atheism is best put forward by scientists: "There is not enough evidence to support the conclusion that God exists, so I can't lead my life as if He does." But I feel as though sometimes it crosses the line and becomes a beleif; "I beleive that God does not exist." and then "Your beleif in God insults my beleif in no-God."
But then, by asking them to cover the cross (or remove the Ten Commandments, or whatever the issue at hand), aren't you asking them to endorse your beleif -- by displaying the icon of your beleif (which is to say, no icon)?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If "no icon" is the icon of the belief of the atheist, what is the icon of belief for an agnostic?
Edit to add: The whole "covering up the cross thing" is just a misreading. I think it stemmed from Rakeesh misunderstanding Glenn, thinking that Glenn wanted the church to cover up the cross for the concert when Glenn actually wanted to have the concert somewhere else entirely.
Posted by miamiandy (Member # 8906) on :
Being atheist or otherwise. Being in a place of worship is one thing. There are often even places where multiple religions share the same house of worship. However having an event in a place of worship and being forced to attend a religious event of another religion is in my opinion not acceptable and should never have come about. I believe this falls under the removal of religion in education. Just because it is not in the school building does not mean that it is still not breaking that law.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Abyss, that's the problem with "religious tolerance" from it's most common interpretations. It encourages examining things not from a neutral point of view, but a secular one. And as atheism is a system of beliefs concerning morality, how to live one's life, and the nature of the creator of the universe, it is actually a religion by standard definitions, so the current state of religion in America, Europe, and other developed regions is really biased towards certain beliefs.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Suppose my public school chorus performs in a Buddhist temple. And the Buddhists come do yoga in a nearby church."
Interesting....I think most Buddhists would laugh at the comparison. Yoga isn't religious, in any sense. People don't do yoga postures to get closer to God, they do them for health reasons. Buddhism isn't particularly a health-oriented religion. Some people in the cultures that have been practicing Buddhism are very into taking care of their health through yoga, diet, and other alternative health practices, but there's nothing especially geared toward taking care of you physical health in that particular religion. Most of those health practices are millennia older than Buddhism. Yoga is practiced by animals, for Pete's sake. Watch how dogs and cats stretch. What's religious about that?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most yoga practiced in the US isn't religious. Yoga was originally (and still is, for many, probably many millions) a religious practice.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: And as atheism is a system of beliefs concerning morality, how to live one's life, and the nature of the creator of the universe, it is actually a religion by standard definitions, so the current state of religion in America, Europe, and other developed regions is really biased towards certain beliefs.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Yoga was originally (and still is, for many, probably many millions) a religious practice."
How's that, exactly? Maybe in the sense of using the postures to open up and relax the body, but it does have measurable usefulness in that sense. Animals wouldn't stretch otherwise. It's a very widespread and common behavior in the animal kingdom, and it doesn't appear to be directly useful for food or reproduction.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't look to public schools to teach "there is no God;" I look to them not to teach about God at all.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't look to public schools to teach "there is no God;" I look to them not to teach about God at all.
Seconded.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And thirded.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But what happens if the practice of not teaching about God at all ends up teaching the kids that there is no God?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But what happens if the practice of not teaching about God at all ends up teaching the kids that there is no God?
Then the parents and family of the kids, assuming they want to pass on their religion and belief in god, have failed.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You seem to have the bizarre idea that yoga == stretching. That's about as sensible as communion == a light snack. Even when practiced as an exercise, there's a very particular form for yoga. What cats and other animals do sometimes parallels and sometimes inspired yoga positions, but it isn't yoga.
The main tradition of yoga that came to the United States does focus on its physical side . . . because of a belief that properly conditioning the physical side helps further one's spiritual side. Also, there are other traditions of yoga that emphasize the spiritual far more.
I mean, most of what we know of yoga comes from hindu religious texts -- because someone who was an expert at yoga was a religiously wise person, and not just out of coincidence. Ever wonder what the root of 'yogi' is?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The parents are welcome to make actual truth claims about God in the home. I just don't want to see truth claims (and those can be either yea or nay) made about God in public schools.
*shrug
The home is the appropriate place for this; the public school is not. Questions that come up in the public school about the existence or non-existence of God can be deferred to be answered at home by the appropriate caregivers.
Tresopax, if the children need to be specifically told there is a God in order to believe, and if that belief is important to the parents, then it is right and proper to address that need. At home.
*spreads hands
This is simple to me. It is not simple to you. I cannot change that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But what happens if the practice of not teaching about God at all ends up teaching the kids that there is no God?"
So?
Honestly, so what? Its not the schools job, in fact its unconstitional, for the school to pass on that particular bit of culture. Its unconstitutional because using the power of the state to teach theology has proven to be a very destructive activity, since theology is such a powerful peice of culture. And in our particular society, there are hundreds if not thousands of different theologies that people believe. By keeping the coercive power of the state out of theology, we allow people to choose their own from the dozens they will be exposed to, including the primary one they are exposed to at home.
If children choose to believe that there is no god, after being exposed to some dozen or two different variations of god, both at school through their peers, and outside of school through their parents and community, then thats fine. Thats an example of the first amendment working smoothly.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Some religious groups, i.e., Orthodox Jews, are not allowed to be in a church at all, let alone pray another religions prayers! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Questions that come up in the public school about the existence or non-existence of God can be deferred to be answered at home by the appropriate caregivers.
It becomes important for the schools to do this properly, though.
If, for example, the teacher responds to a query that brings up God with "that's not important to this discussion," then I think the teacher has made a theological statement, probably without meaning to do so.
Deferring the question needs to be done in a manner that is clearly deferring, not minimizing.
Probably a totally other tangent, but one the primary reasons I support school vouchers is that I think it is perfectly reasonable for a parent to desire a more integrated education. One of my principle objections to the expansion of government services is that, when such expansion becomes the norms, we've created a new area of society where religion is actively excluded, rather than left up to the individual.
I don't think that objection is always dispositive, but I do think it's important and plays a factor in many of my opinions about government-funded expression such as teaching, art, etc.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
out of curiosity dagonee, I recently answered a question about god in my physics class by saying "I think saying "God did it" is a cop out. if god did it, we should be able to understand how he did it."
minimizing, deferring, deflecting?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't look to public schools to teach "there is no God;" I look to them not to teach about God at all.
I do not look to schools for that. I look to public (and private, actually) schools to teach about human beliefs about God, insofar as those beliefs frequently play a fundemantal role in human history in the humanities, in government, in science, and even in some cases about economics. I do not believe religion should be the elephant in the room when it comes to public education.
That's how you end up thinking that, for example, Mormons are barred from caffeine or that Jews devour human babies, or that Indians worship cattle.
Now in practice, it's a very tricky proposition, of course. Putting our heads firmly in the sand because it's too hard (as completely ignoring religion entirely seems to me to be) isn't the right answer.
quote:"I think saying "God did it" is a cop out. if god did it, we should be able to understand how he did it."
Don't be ridiculous, saying that God did it isn't a cop out. Saying that God did it, and then simply not thinking about it beyond that ever again, and not being curious anymore, that's a cop out.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I agree with Rakeesh. You can not simply ignore religion. We once read a Tale of Two Cities and the teacher refused to comment on Christian religious symbolism to avoid any hint of "teaching the Bible." Since the book has tons of those symbols, students who did not know the Bible were not able to get as much from the Book as those who did. I think that she should have covered the religious symbols the same way she talked about references to Greek mythology or Shakespeare.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:out of curiosity dagonee, I recently answered a question about god in my physics class by saying "I think saying "God did it" is a cop out. if god did it, we should be able to understand how he did it."
minimizing, deferring, deflecting?
I think it's making a theological statement, and a fairly profound one.
I think "'God did it' is not an answer derived from physics" would be proper deferring.
More could be said, but I can't formulate it right now.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok. Thanks.
being a science teacher, god does come up in my class... and being an atheist, but also an atheist with a lot of family members who are religious, its always a struggle for me to formulate something acceptable.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do not look to schools for that. I look to public (and private, actually) schools to teach about human beliefs about God, insofar as those beliefs frequently play a fundemantal role in human history in the humanities, in government, in science, and even in some cases about economics. I do not believe religion should be the elephant in the room when it comes to public education.
That is the difference between teaching about "God" and teaching about "people's beliefs about God."
I draw a strong distinction between the two. I have no problem with the latter, but I do think conflating the two concepts has been quite the bugaboo for this sort of discussion.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I agree with Rakeesh. You can not simply ignore religion. ... I think that she should have covered the religious symbols the same way she talked about references to Greek mythology or Shakespeare.
"God" =! "people's beliefs about God"
Discussing religious symbolism in literature and in cultural contexts is discussing a particular belief system, not the ontological nature of God (or gods). I'll reiterate that I think this conflation causes a lot of unnecessary and misleading confusion.
---
Edited to add in clarification: Worship services generally involve professions of faith and discussion on or sermons about the nature of God (or gods); e.g., how God is active in our lives, how we can become closer to God, etc.
This is different than discussing beliefs at at least one level of remove: e.g., "some people believe X, and other people believe Y. When people believe X, here are some of the words they use, and here is how those words have been incorporated into the broader culture."
The latter discussion does not address whether these beliefs are correct or not; it does not address how God really is, as it does not even make any claims about whether God does or does not exist. It just talks about the behaviors (actions, language, etc.) of people. I think that is fine myself, although just as with any subject, it could be done well or poorly, depending on the specific particulars of the circumstance.
[ November 04, 2007, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"The main tradition of yoga that came to the United States does focus on its physical side . . . because of a belief that properly conditioning the physical side helps further one's spiritual side. Also, there are other traditions of yoga that emphasize the spiritual far more."
So is your point that the end result of yoga depends on the intention that you approach it with? I would agree with that.
On a related note, I just did a handstand pushup. Bam! OK, that's more calisthenics than yoga, but I'm still the man. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:out of curiosity dagonee, I recently answered a question about god in my physics class by saying "I think saying "God did it" is a cop out. if god did it, we should be able to understand how he did it."
minimizing, deferring, deflecting?
I think it's making a theological statement, and a fairly profound one.
I think "'God did it' is not an answer derived from physics" would be proper deferring.
More could be said, but I can't formulate it right now.
If you want to include the idea that using God as an excuse to not do the work is not acceptable (which is what I got from your original statement) you could say something like "Using 'God did it' to avoid learning all that we can about the universe is a cop out."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My point is that nearly everything in this paragraph is wrong:
quote:Interesting....I think most Buddhists would laugh at the comparison. Yoga isn't religious, in any sense. People don't do yoga postures to get closer to God, they do them for health reasons. Buddhism isn't particularly a health-oriented religion. Some people in the cultures that have been practicing Buddhism are very into taking care of their health through yoga, diet, and other alternative health practices, but there's nothing especially geared toward taking care of you physical health in that particular religion. Most of those health practices are millennia older than Buddhism. Yoga is practiced by animals, for Pete's sake. Watch how dogs and cats stretch. What's religious about that?
Many buddhists would not laugh at the comparison, since, like with Hinduism, yoga is frequently used as a religious practice in Buddhism. Yoga is religious in many sense. People do do yoga postures to be closer to God. Some varieties of Buddhism are extremely health oriented (and many varieties of Hinduism even more so).
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Fugu, are you speaking about the history of Buddhism in China? The Buddhists there are not known for being as health-conscious as the Taoists. Maybe you could find small exceptions here or there, but they're small. Taoism predates Buddhism by several centuries, and one of the main descriptions of Taoism is the "study of longevity". The Buddhists are known for thinking of the body as a source of problems and illusions....the Taoists are known for wanting to keep the body in good health for as long as possible. These goals are not exactly the same. Granted, some Taoists are religious Taoists only, and that's always been true, but I've never heard of any branch of Buddhism being called the "study of longevity". That's not to say that some Buddhists don't practice yoga, qi gong, good nutrition, herbal medicine, acupuncture, and other such. However, pointless and dangerous asceticism are much more part and parcel of Buddhist history than Taoist. Practices like veganism or even lacto-vegetarianism are not particularly smart, health-wise. Those are Buddhist/Hindu, not Taoist.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There are lots and lots of different kinds of Buddhists, and some of them are indeed into healthy practices (but not for the sake of health per se-- more for the sake of keeping the body balanced to remove problems that cloud the mind. I would say this practice probably did come out of close contact with Taoists, but it exists. Like I said, many different kinds of Buddhists.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As you're aware, there are several varieties of Buddhism. Re-read my post, and note the lack of universal statements.
Of course, yoga is more strongly identified (especially in a religious sense) with Hinduism.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And I know some vegans who are some of the healthiest people I know (no supplements, all nutrients from food.) Ditto ovo-lacto-vegetarians. It all depends HOW you practice them. It is possible, with work, to have a blanced and healthy vegan diet.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd guess the health tradition comes more out of Hinduism (unsurprising, given Buddhism did ) than Taoism, but in China there would definitely have been influence from the Taoists as well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
True. Hinduism, Taoism, and probably a few other cultural and religious traditions I know nothing about.
The point is, the practice exists.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"It is possible, with work, to have a blanced and healthy vegan diet."
Plenty of heavy smokers have lived into their 80s. That doesn't mean being a heavy smoker is worth anyone's time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, I am SO not getting into a discussion of diet with you. But I will just say that you are being very judgemental of something that does not harm you at all.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Whatever makes you happy.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do not look to schools for that. I look to public (and private, actually) schools to teach about human beliefs about God, insofar as those beliefs frequently play a fundemantal role in human history in the humanities, in government, in science, and even in some cases about economics. I do not believe religion should be the elephant in the room when it comes to public education.
That is the difference between teaching about "God" and teaching about "people's beliefs about God."
I draw a strong distinction between the two. I have no problem with the latter, but I do think conflating the two concepts has been quite the bugaboo for this sort of discussion.
I think my high school was terrified of being sued and so they decided that it would be easier to just avoid God at all, rather then worry about distinguishing the two. My school had a very sue happy student body though- the girl who lost student body president had her lawyer come and appeal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I draw a strong distinction between the two. I have no problem with the latter, but I do think conflating the two concepts has been quite the bugaboo for this sort of discussion.
Strange...to me, there's never an issue about conflating the two. I guess that's because (when I'm talking with other people), I regard all subjects dealing with God as almost completely subjective. So far as talking about God with human beings is concerned, heh, context is everything, because without it certain failure to understand what is being said by the other party is what you get. As opposed to certain partial failure when you take context into account.
Anyway, suffice it to say that I agree with you: I believe schools should teach about the beliefs different peoples have concerning the divine, insofar as those beliefs impact history, culture, etc. etc. It should not simply be treated like, "These people believed God wanted them to do thus and so," and then left alone, nor should God be expunged from texts as a motivator in human events. But it's a very tricky proposition just for an individual, much less an entire system.
There are times when I wonder if perhaps it would be better to err on the side of excessive caution, and do as (perhaps) Paul would like, and not delve into religion at all as required course material.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What I haven't gotten my head around is the fact that the Founding Fathers were, by and large, not very religious men. Jefferson and Franklin were Deists at most. Think about that--they knew nothing close to what we know today about physics, chemistry, or a dozen other subjects. However, they were far more skeptical of religion/Creationism than many Americans now, some with advanced scientific degrees. And, to top it all off, they specifically chose to separate church and state, although I think that may have been simply in recognition of the impossibility of fairly choosing a state religion, or it may have been out of hate/fear/rage re: Roman Catholicism and/or the Anglican church. Dunno. Haven't studied it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: What I haven't gotten my head around is the fact that the Founding Fathers were, by and large, not very religious men.
Well, they had just fought for their freedom from a religious monarchy, so I think that has at least something to do with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What I haven't gotten my head around is the fact that the Founding Fathers were, by and large, not very religious men. Jefferson and Franklin were Deists at most.
Perhaps you should try to wrap your head around why you think Deism and being 'very religious' are concepts so at odds with one another?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What I haven't gotten my head around is the fact that the Founding Fathers were, by and large, not very religious men. Jefferson and Franklin were Deists at most.
Perhaps you should try to wrap your head around why you think Deism and being 'very religious' are concepts so at odds with one another?
Not to answer for steven, but Deism is the belief (IIRC) that there is a god that started everything, but doesn't interact with us beyond that. There doesn't seem anything there to be terribly 'religious' about, let alone be 'very religious' about it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: That is the difference between teaching about "God" and teaching about "people's beliefs about God."
I draw a strong distinction between the two. I have no problem with the latter, but I do think conflating the two concepts has been quite the bugaboo for this sort of discussion.
In our home, we mostly discuss other people's beliefs. Just this morning, we sat down as a family and watched the Scientology episode of South Park, with frequent pauses for discussion. We had to explain the closet metaphor, and how people can be manipulated in accepting crazy crap as the truth (mostly by waiting until they are heavily invested either financially or emotionally before telling them the really cooky bits).
Then, we watched the Simpsons episode where Homer joins a cult run by "The Leader" who promises to take his followers to the planet Blisstonia. We talked about the spot light and the use of peer pressure to keep people watching an indoctrination film even though they wanted to leave, etc.
It was the closest we've come to a religious exercise on a Sunday in forever, but I feel confident that it help prepare our wee ones for living in the real world, at least in some small way.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Perhaps you should try to wrap your head around why you think Deism and being 'very religious' are concepts so at odds with one another?"
A Deist would be somebody who isn't really sure the Book of Mormon is true. Such a person is, to some degree, in danger of being excommunicated from the LDS church, if they are too vocal about this, or vocal in the wrong way, right?
I guess what I find interesting is the rise and fall in religious fervor, and how it only partially correlates with scientific knowledge. I wouldn't think the two could be so disconnected.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: A Deist would be somebody who isn't really sure the Book of Mormon is true.
Wouldn't that be an agnostic mormon?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Dare I wonder why I read that as "an antagonistic mormon"?
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: I guess what I find interesting is the rise and fall in religious fervor, and how it only partially correlates with scientific knowledge. I wouldn't think the two could be so disconnected.
That's because there isn't really a conflict between science and religion for many religious people, and it's probably safe to say most educated religious types. God made the world, rules the world, we're trying to figure out the rules. (or something along those lines)
I recently attended a talk where a statistic was given that the percentage of science PhDs that 'attend religious services regularly' was exactly the same as the American public at large--50% The speaker mentioned that both the PhDs and the public were probably not entirely truthful, 'cause I find 50% hard to believe for either education level :-p But it's an interesting statistic nonetheless.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I recently attended a talk where a statistic was given that the percentage of science PhDs that 'attend religious services regularly' was exactly the same as the American public at large--50% The speaker mentioned that both the PhDs and the public were probably not entirely truthful, 'cause I find 50% hard to believe for either education level :-p But it's an interesting statistic nonetheless.
I'd be interested to see the source of that statistic. I have seen studies that indicate that scientists, especially those involved in life sciences, are particularly nonreligious compared to society at large.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd be interested to see the source of that statistic. I have seen studies that indicate that scientists, especially those involved in life sciences, are particularly nonreligious compared to society at large.
Studies like this, with their somewhat obvious intent, are sort of fascinating to me. Really, I'm not sure why we should look to the most intelligent people for answers to spiritual questions...or really why we should be looking to other people at all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And there is no way that 50% of the American public attends religious services regularly. Unless going to a Christmas Eve service every year counts as "regular."
Are you sure it wasn't 50% of people who claim to belong to a religion attend services of that religion regularly?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, if the children need to be specifically told there is a God in order to believe, and if that belief is important to the parents, then it is right and proper to address that need. At home.
That's not exactly what I was talking about, though. What I meant is that it is possible that by not mentioning God, schools ARE teaching kids something about God.
At a minimum, there are definitely some situations in which you can teach something by never mentioning it at all. For example, when I took middle school history, there was virtually no mention in class of what happened in America before the European colonists arrived. (There was a few paragraphs in the textbook but nothing more.) By NOT mentioning Native American history, I think they successfully and unintentionally were teaching the class that Native American history was not very important. They never actually said that it wasn't important. I'm sure the teacher didn't even believe it. But it was definitely what we inferred from the teacher NOT talking about it.
A similar case could be made that by not talking about God in public schools, the schools teach kids that God is not important, or doesn't exist at all. The school obviously never says it, and certainly doesn't intend to teach it, but it may be teaching it anyway. If that is the case then is it even possible to run a school that is truly neutral towards different religious attitudes?
I'd think one could test this out: You could survey a bunch of homeschooled 8th graders about their religious views, and then brake them into a control group who stayed homeschooled through 12th grade and a second group containing those who went into public high schools for the next four years. At the end of the four years, you could give them the survey again and see how they change. Presumably, if the public high schools were truly religion-neutral, then going there should not differ greatly from the results of those who stay homeschooled. But if the public school students became more or less religious than the control group, you might conclude that at least some element of the public school is influencing their religious attitudes. (Of course it would be more complicated than this, and some other elements would have to be accounted for, such as people who are homeschooled for religious reasonss, etc., but it would be interesting to know nonetheless.)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I am actually suprised by how many of my fellow scientists (biochemistry) are religious. It isn't something discussed frequently though. After working for my boss for over five years, I just recently learned he regularly attends church. My personal belief is that science tells how things happen, religion why.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
There are several definitions of "deist."
I believe that Jefferson was quite religious, however, he believed that the only information a person could know about God was that which could be determined by examining the natural world. That was his version of deism, and it's certainly not the same as the "God doesn't interact with the world after creating it" style deism.
You may be familiar with what has come to be known as "The Jefferson Bible." This was not a new version of the Bible according to Jefferson, rather it was his personal examination of the Bible to determine what parts of it fit into his deist outlook. Essentially he took the earliest greek and latin texts of the new testament, laid it down next to the King James version, and did his best to reconcile the translations, and to determine how much could be taken as true without relying on faith.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Presumably, if the public high schools were truly religion-neutral, then going there should not differ greatly from the results of those who stay homeschooled.
Unfortunately there are so many other factors that it would be very hard to see anything from a study like that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Tresopax, if the children need to be specifically told there is a God in order to believe, and if that belief is important to the parents, then it is right and proper to address that need. At home.
That's not exactly what I was talking about, though. What I meant is that it is possible that by not mentioning God, schools ARE teaching kids something about God.
I'd think it would be pretty obvious that children would be taught about the separation of church and state in government class, delineating why truth-claims about God are not addressed in the public school program.
*mildly amused
---
Edited to clarify: I suspect talking about the nature of God is *somewhat* like talking about a given student's parents' sexual practices. The public school is not the appropriate forum. Doesn't mean they are bad, doesn't mean they are shameful -- they may well be glorious, important, and critical to those people's health, happiness, and mission in life. But -- not to be discussed as personal details in the public school. (In private the parents may choose to discuss things to the extent they choose, some more freely than others. If it is not abusive, it is not the public interest to intervene or dictate.)
Contrast this to talking about people's sexual practices in general as part of a health class. That is at a level of remove. It is also at a level at which the information can be publicly falsified: do people actually make these judgments? How does this work? What does this sort of thing mean in the bigger picture? But it is not a personal testimonial.
Sure, if we never talk about your personal parents' sexual practices, but instead only about how people behave in general, you may come to the conclusion as a young person that your parents never have sex. Or that they "swing from the chandeliers," as Olivet puts it so picturesquely. However, this would not be the fault of the school, and it would not be fixable by the school, and it should not be fixed by the school.
Should the parents wish to clarify or teach about it, then they are welcome.
[ November 05, 2007, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Are you sure it wasn't 50% of people who claim to belong to a religion attend services of that religion regularly?
I think the actual question asked was "Have you attended a religious service in the past week" or "Have you taken part in a religious activity in the past week?"
Still a mostly unbelievable statistic, but maybe what it shows is the intent of the 50%--they'd like to be the type of person who attends religious services weekly, which still shows that the scientific community is no less religious than anyone else.
quote: My personal belief is that science tells how things happen, religion why.
My thoughts exactly ^_^
ETA: I'm afraid I don't have a source for the stat since it was from a talk, but it was given by a prominent physical chemist at a fairly prestigious university, so I'm willing to bet that he didn't pull it out of thin air.
quote: Really, I'm not sure why we should look to the most intelligent people for answers to spiritual questions...or really why we should be looking to other people at all.
I wasn't saying that we should refer to scientists 'better judgement' or anything, just showing that science doesn't contradict religion nearly as much as some people would like to claim.
[ November 05, 2007, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Eowyn-sama ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: I wasn't saying that we should refer to scientists 'better judgement' or anything, just showing that science doesn't contradict religion nearly as much as some people would like to claim.
Well, science generally doesn't speak on religious matters. When religion makes a scientific claim or science makes a religious one is when the proverbial 'fun' begins.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
Yes indeed :-p
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'd think it would be pretty obvious that children would be taught about the separation of church and state in government class, delineating why truth-claims about God are not addressed in the public school program.
Do you think kids in elementary school or middle school fully understand this lesson? I bet most seventh graders can tell you there is such a thing as separation of church and state, but I bet most could not explain why such a rule was made. I definitely don't think most third graders could.
quote:Edited to clarify: I suspect talking about the nature of God is *somewhat* like talking about a given student's parents' sexual practices. The public school is not the appropriate forum.
I would think that talking about a given student's parents' sexual practices would be more comparable to talking about a given student's parents' religious practices. In contrast, talking about the nature of God in general is more aking to talking about sex in general. And discussion of the latter IS done in public schools in health classes, as you mentioned. In fact, I'd think it is likely that if sex was NEVER mentioned at all in public school, it would indeed send some messages to the students. It is also one of those "elephant in the room" topics that tends to be there even if you don't mention it.
quote:Should the parents wish to clarify or teach about it, then they are welcome.
The trouble is that students' lives revolve around school. If the whole environment in which they interact with peers and adults is telling them one lesson, and their parents are telling them the opposite lesson, which do you think they will trust? My guess is that older kids are going to trust their school culture over their parents.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What is amazing to me is how history can taught without mentioning religion. The Great Awakening, the shift to liberal interpretations of scripture, the rise of fundamentalism, the role of Catholicism in some of the prejudice against the Irish, the role of Christiantiy in the Abolitionist movement, the role of religion in deciding that keeping agreements with the natives wasn't important - understanding what motivates people and nations is absolute essential to understanding history, and it is just about impossible to teach accurate history without it.
By removing all mention of God and religion from school, you're teaching censored (inaccurate) history.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: In contrast, talking about the nature of God in general is more aking to talking about sex in general. And discussion of the latter IS done in public schools in health classes, as you mentioned. In fact, I'd think it is likely that if sex was NEVER mentioned at all in public school, it would indeed send some messages to the students. It is also one of those "elephant in the room" topics that tends to be there even if you don't mention it.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: By removing all mention of God and religion from school, you're teaching censored (inaccurate) history.
*points up again to the differentiation between "discussion of God" and "discussion of people's behaviors that may (or may not) incorporate God-beliefs"
---
That is to say:
"God" =! "people's beliefs about God"
Discussing religious symbolism in literature and in cultural contexts is discussing a particular belief system, not the ontological nature of God (or gods). I'll reiterate that I think this conflation causes a lot of unnecessary and misleading confusion.
Worship services generally involve professions of faith and discussion on or sermons about the nature of God (or gods); e.g., how God is active in our lives, how we can become closer to God, etc.
This is different than discussing beliefs at at least one level of remove: e.g., "some people believe X, and other people believe Y. When people believe X, here are some of the words they use, and here is how those words have been incorporated into the broader culture."
The latter discussion does not address whether these beliefs are correct or not; it does not address how God really is, as it does not even make any claims about whether God does or does not exist. It just talks about the behaviors (actions, language, etc.) of people. I think that is fine myself, although just as with any subject, it could be done well or poorly, depending on the specific particulars of the circumstance.
[ November 05, 2007, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Do you think kids in elementary school or middle school fully understand this lesson? I bet most seventh graders can tell you there is such a thing as separation of church and state, but I bet most could not explain why such a rule was made. I definitely don't think most third graders could.
Perhaps not, but that's why they're in school, to learn about these things.
Out of curiosity Tres, how do you think public schools should treat the subject? I only ask because you seem to to be suggesting that not mentioning god (other than religions and their impact on the world) isn't the way to go.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have to be careful when explaining these things to Sophie. I've got the "some people believe that..." bit down just fine, but I haven't yet come up with a decent (and kid-friendly) explanation of why it's rude to tell other kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have to be careful when explaining these things to Sophie. I've got the "some people believe that..." bit down just fine, but I haven't yet come up with a decent (and kid-friendly) explanation of why it's rude to tell other kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
How about you put it in terms of a game other families play, and she's ruining the surprise for the kids if she tells them that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If I know Sophie at all, she'd want to know how that game is played, and why people think it's fun. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Kids will take time to understand nuance. I'm okay with them getting confused between what is a discussion of God/gods and what is a discussion of people's behaviors (language as well as actions) incorporating God/gods-beliefs.
But public schools should be a) involved in discussing the latter (when appropriate to the lessons), not the former and b) explain the difference when kids get confused between the two. As Javert noted, that is a part of learning.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It seems that being quick to accuse public schools of teaching God instead of role-of-God instead makes public schools leery of mentioning anything to do with religion altogether. Which, of course, completely bowdlerizes American and world history.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It seems that being quick to accuse public schools of teaching God instead of role-of-God instead makes public schools leery of mentioning anything to do with religion altogether. Which, of course, completely bowdlerizes American and world history.
I think part of the issue is right there...public school shouldn't teach god or role-of-god. Role-of-religion, on the other hand, seems to be the way to do it.
If I'm repeating myself, I apologize.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Javert Hugo, I'd say that is a criticism that is certainly appropriate to level at those who are "quick to accuse public schools of teaching God instead of role-of-[religion]." [Agreed, Javert.] I don't think that's true of anyone in this thread, although I can see the point is related to the discussion at hand.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
By equating a discussion of religion with a discussion of sexual practicies, it certainly seems like it makes the entire subject of religion too radioactive to be touched by public schools.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As a person of faith, I absolutely do not want public schools teaching my kids any "truth claims" about God. I would much rather God never be mentioned* than have to contradict my kids' teachers because they are teaching something contrary to what our religion teaches.
*although I agree with JH that never discussing people's beliefs about God guts history and literature.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: *although I agree with JH that never discussing people's beliefs about God guts history and literature.
Is it just me, or are we all just saying the same thing over and over?
Not that I object to agreeing with y'all. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Thinking about, I do mean role-of-God [to people] rather than role of religion.
Divorcing people's feeling about their religion as opposed to their feelings about what God wanted them to do is a commentary in itself about religion. It is changing what people felt fealty to from the divine to a human creation or a social construct - it is denying that people did feel that they were doing what God wanted them to do.
I realize that God as a historical figure can bother people who don't want God to be anything real, but you can preface the discussion by saying "this is how it was to the people at the time" without claiming to teach absolute truth about God.
Not doing that distorts the role of religion - kind of like saying Catholics follow the pope or early Mormons joined the LDS church because of Joseph Smith. Those are certainly important things to mention, but it is still quite a distortion of the picture. It's a judgment, and it's not a fair one.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Out of curiosity Tres, how do you think public schools should treat the subject? I only ask because you seem to to be suggesting that not mentioning god (other than religions and their impact on the world) isn't the way to go.
Well, I would think that it is difficult to make a school that doesn't in any way send the kids messages about religion. And if you were to do it, I think you would have to mention the beliefs of different major religions in the classes in which they come into play. Simply never discussing religion would probably not work.
quote:"God" =! "people's beliefs about God"
Yes, that is true. But it is often tricky to separate the two. Christmas performances are an excellent example. Students might be singing praises to the Christian God, which could be a lesson on God or it could be a lesson on people's beliefs about God, depending on how the students are being taught to approach it.
As you said, the students tend to understand the nuanced difference in what they are being taught. My problem is I suspect some of the parents, or other adults who move these issues into the political realm, often do not - seeing religion mentioned in a school sponsored event, and assuming the worst.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That is why I would phrase it as "people's beliefs about God" rather than "role of God" or "role of religion."
edit: this was in response to JH.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I realize that God as a historical figure can bother people who don't want God to be anything real
[nitpick] Not about wanting. It's about not having a belief in and not finding evidence for it. [/nitpick]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I can see it now:
State Exam For 5th Grade Achievement (NCLB)
Essay Question #4
God is: (Limit 50 Words, spelling, penmanship, and descipleship will count for 25% of your grade)
***This is not a True/False Question***
Then later, "Mom? The school wants to talk to you. It seems I flunked God. The makeup work is heck."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: By equating a discussion of religion with a discussion of sexual practicies, it certainly seems like it makes the entire subject of religion too radioactive to be touched by public schools.
I understand that the point of the (notedly loose) analogy I made in terms of privacy might have been overshadowed by a negative view of sexuality. That is unfortunate.
I would be happy to use a better example for you. Can you let me know if there is anything you deem inappropriate to be discussed at a public school because it is a matter solely of the personal, private domain? (I assume you think there are things that shouldn't be topics of discussion at a public school, and maybe we can see if the analogy holds better for you there.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm not saying that evidence for God should be presented. However, if you want to teach anyone about how a population viewed God, then you can't substitute "religion" in for God. They are very different things, and doing so distorts history and is a judgment itself about the people and their beliefs.
You can teach what people believed without subscribing to or advocating those beliefs.
quote:Can you let me know if there is anything you deem inappropriate to be discussed at a public school because it is a matter solely of the personal, private domain?
The problem is that I don't think religion falls into this category - not when you are discussing history and literature, especially. Teaching history and literature but never mentioning anything to do with religion necessitates a gigantic censoring to the point of making the class a facade.
It distorts current events as well. Can you imagine trying to explain the riots and tensions in Europe without mentioning religion? Or teaching about the first Gulf war and its consequences?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You can teach what people believed without subscribing to or advocating those beliefs.
Agreed.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: You can teach what people believed without subscribing to or advocating those beliefs.
Sure. Maybe this clarification would help:
I doubt I'd have a quibble with the topic of "God/gods" given it was always prefaced with something like the words "some people's beliefs about God/gods." I think with that framing, the analytic stance is much more clear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, if you want to teach anyone about how a population viewed God, then you can't substitute "religion" in for God. They are very different things...
In what way?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Saying they are equivalent or that in giving their loyalties to who they thought was God, people were actually just buying into this or that social club is a judgment in and of itself.
When teaching history, it is better to teach what the people themselves thought in their time and what they thought about themselves. It is certainly more true, anyway.
To do otherwise would be as false as reading Greek myths and spending all your time tut-tutting Zeus for his unuxorious behavior. That's great for reinforcing a certain mindset, but you haven't actually learned about the Greeks.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: The problem is that I don't think religion falls into this category - not when you are
Of course. I am taking it on myself to make the argument for an analogy, afterward.
All I need from you to get started is an example of something you think belongs in the private domain rather than in public school discussions (it can be anything -- obviously for you, it is not religion, but that's a given).
---
Edited to add: Alternatively, if it feels like unwarranted pressure, then we can leave it at an analogy drawn to "whatever it is you think should stay private across the board instead of being discussed in public school, if anything."
Of course you may take the position that nothing should be avoided discussing as a public topic, which would just mean we probably don't have enough common ground for discussion. Similarly if you think the only things to be kept private are shameful or disgusting things -- there, too, we probably wouldn't have enough common grounds for discussion. Not a big deal, though.
[ November 05, 2007, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Short of sex, crime, and personal finances, there aren't a lot of topics that I think shouldn't be discussed in public.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
CT, I can’t think of anything that fits that description, except when making the distinction between discussing the topic in general and pointing at individuals in particular, and then I think it applies to almost everything. Sex in general, fine; a students’ parents’ sex life in particular, no. Finance and bookkeeping, great; having students bring in their parents’ tax return or credit report, no.
Edit to add one that wasn't on kat's list: Nutrition should be taught; evaluating Mary's mom's cooking and menu planning, no.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Saying they are equivalent or that in giving their loyalties to who they thought was God, people were actually just buying into this or that social club is a judgment in and of itself.
But surely it is the case that the Greeks were, for example, buying into a social club. And the Hindus? In fact, the only thing you can say for sure about any religion is that it is a social club into which people have bought, all the while believing that they were doing so to get a better understanding of their god(s).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*nods
I'd say the ontological nature of God/gods is a matter necessarily of at least some personal revelation***, not something subject to general public analysis. (Otherwise, there would be a lot more agreement on God/gods, as there would be a way to settle debates without personal revelatory foundation.)
In contrast, claims about what people said or did with reference to God/gods are at least threoretically falsifiable and have an interobseserver evidence base. (Did Joyce use imagery from the New Testament? You can compare the two. Did early settlers attribute the success of crops to a given god? You can assess their written and oral histories, either directly or through secondary sources.)
I'll say this again, because we may not disagree: I doubt I'd have a quibble with the topic of "God/gods" given it was always prefaced with something like the words "some people's beliefs about God/gods." I think with that framing, the analytic stance is much more clear.
---
Edited to add: *** i.e., a matter of "individuals in particular" (and I use the quotation to make sure the reference is clear, not to cast aspersions on the concept itself -- I think matters the individual in particular are highly important and critically valuable to understanding one's own life and role in the world. I just don't think they are topics appropriate for analytic assessment by groups of children in public school.)
What God/gods are is a matter that fundamentally brings in individual belief and practices. What people do or say -- that is, human behavior (language or actions) -- can be discussed in general terms.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:By removing all mention of God and religion from school, you're teaching censored (inaccurate) history.
There has never been a case made to the courts claiming that any mention of God or religion must be removed from school. The issue in the courts is whether schools can create an situation where students would feel coerced to engage in a religious activity. The Annals of Congress shows that the framers of the first amendment meant to restrict government from "establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship." I find those terms to be a pretty concise, so I tend to use them.
Also, (from wikipedia) a method to determine when the first amendment is breached:
quote:The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Teaching religious history is a legitimate secular purpose, so it meets the first prong of the lemon test. The second prong of the lemon test places specific limits on what a teacher may present to the class regarding the "truth" of a religious idea.
The third prong of the lemon test relates especially to the situations that started this thread.
Note also that the SCOTUS has included language in their decisions explaining that they are NOT limiting an individual's right to engage in their religious activity. Students can pray in school, and teachers may not prevent students from praying in school, unless that prayer would fall under normal restrictions on behavior, such as not interrupting the teacher's lecture, etc. Teachers can also pray in school, provided that that prayer can not be interpreted as a suggestion that students should accompany the teacher in prayer (that would be establishing a mode of worship).
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I agree with what dkw is saying, and she is saying it much better.
Biological details about sex - fine and important. A given students' parents - no.
Interest and finances and bookkeeping and budgeting - yes. Individuals' families money - no.
Religions and God and their followers and the influence on history and literature and current events and politics - yes. Claiming to teach the truth about God (in either direction) - no.
----
I haven't said anything about anything being either shameful or disgusting. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Do you feel that any of those subjects are?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So Glenn, back to the original topic – what is your objective now? I don’t think anyone on the thread has said that scheduling the school orchestra to play for a church service is anything other than a really dumb, most likely illegal, move. Are you (or your brother) going to try to get it changed for this trip, have your niece sit that activity out, let this one slide but try to get the school to understand that they shouldn’t do it again, or what?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Religions and God and their followers and the influence on history and literature and current events and politics - yes. Claiming to teach the truth about God (in either direction) - no.
After making the change to "Religions and their followers and the influence on history and literature and current events and politics - yes. Claiming to teach the truth about God (in either direction) - no," I think I would perfectly agree.
quote:I haven't said anything about anything being either shameful or disgusting. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Do you feel that any of those subjects are?
It is one reaons why someone might not want to give an answer to that request for an analogy -- if one thought only shameful things shouldn't be discussed publically, and one explicitly wanted to aid in drawing an analogy between religion and something shameful (I was taking that to be the problem with "sexual practices"), then one may decline to give an answer, and understandably so.
It was in a list of "or"s, Javert Hugo, which was my way of trying to avoid you feeling backed into a corner because I asked for something of you.
I don't have any problem with someone thinking everything that isn't shameful should be open to public discussion. It isn't my view, but I don't find people foul who do so, and I wasn't trying to paint the option as a foul one -- rather as a teneable potential position.
---
*points to initial analogy
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Edited to clarify: I suspect talking about the nature of God is *somewhat* like talking about a given student's parents' sexual practices. The public school is not the appropriate forum. Doesn't mean they are bad, doesn't mean they are shameful -- they may well be glorious, important, and critical to those people's health, happiness, and mission in life. But -- not to be discussed as personal details in the public school. (In private the parents may choose to discuss things to the extent they choose, some more freely than others. If it is not abusive, it is not the public interest to intervene or dictate.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm sorry you misunderstood earlier. I have been saying the same thing the entire time.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The idea behind separation of church and state is not to keep God out of schools, it is to stop us from fighting over who's God to put in school.
Everyone here who says, "We need God in the Classroom" needs to agree on one thing--which version of God do they want? Is the Sunni Allah ok? Is a Methodist view of God the one you want your children learning about, being graded on, or should it be Catholic? LDS? Hebrewic? Jim Jones?
Some suggest "oh, just Generic God!" But wars have been fought, and people have died to keep their God very specific.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm sorry you misunderstood earlier. I have been saying the same thing the entire time.
My apologies if I misunderstood, and my apologies for leading you to a misunderstanding as well.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dana:
The concert was yesterday, and my niece was allowed to wait at the hotel during the service. My brother had contacted Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and they sent a letter to the school. That was where the school said "we aren't doing anything illegal."
At this point it's actually kind of out of my brother's hands. Americans United sees the regular concerts at the church to be a greater problem, because it's ongoing, as opposed to a one-time thing. I don't know what kind of action they'll take.
BTW, Dana, I've been wondering. Where has Bob been lately? Seems like the last time I remembering him post here was last year when I rebuilt my truck engine.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He's cut down on the number of sites he visits. Work, parenting, all that real life stuff gets in the way.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Glenn, was she the only one who waited at the hotel? If so, I think the school should be ashamed of itself for putting her in that sort of situation. But good for her and her dad for sticking to their guns.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I don't know. This whole thing really came up pretty fast. The trip has been planned for some time, but the actual schedule only became available last week. I haven't talked with my brother since Saturday, when he told me she would be able to stay at the hotel. He wanted to know if I could drive down to Newark and watch the service to see what happened, because I'm closer than he is (he's in Ohio), but it's still a ways from here, and I had other things I was trying to accomplish, and again, it was really short notice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: I don’t think anyone on the thread has said that scheduling the school orchestra to play for a church service is anything other than a really dumb, most likely illegal, move.
I certainly didn't say that scheduling the school orchestra is a dumb move, and I am on this thread. I think it would most likely be a good experience for the kids. And I think it would be a shame to get something like that cancelled for the sake of politics.
As we've said in this thread, there is a difference between teaching about God and teaching about people's belief in God. Visiting and performing at a church service, as an outside group, is an experience that most likely falls in the latter category. Of course, that would depend on exactly what they are supposed to do, and how the school staff direct the kids to approach the experience.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Tres, provided no one is being forced to sit through a religious service, I see no real problem with the orchestra performing there.
Ideally, if they're going to do things like that, they should also have the orchestra play at a Mosque, a Jewish temple, a Secular Humanist event, a Hindu festival, a Mormon church...etc. Obviously they couldn't do them all, but an attempt to diversify would be appreciated.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You know, I almost put "except maybe Tresopax" in my post. You may take that as added.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Americans United sees the regular concerts at the church to be a greater problem, because it's ongoing, as opposed to a one-time thing. I don't know what kind of action they'll take.
I’m interested in where to draw the line on this kind of thing. Speaking as a representative of a church, we want to be “good neighbors” and positive members of our community. We open up our building for community and non-profit groups whenever it’s available. Rooms are also available for wedding or baby showers, anniversary & birthday parties, etc. We ask a $25 fee for utilities and custodial service, but that’s much less than renting a space somewhere else. Dancing a little closer to the line, we’ve let school groups use our parking lot for fundraisers – cheerleaders’ car wash, band boosters’ rummage sale, etc. And I think the nearby elementary school used our basement for summer school for a few weeks one year when they had some kind of emergency problem in their building (asbestos or mold or something -- it was before I was here.) Is that inappropriate? (Note: there is no cross in the basement, and I’m sure the Sunday School posters were taken down in the classrooms, so there would have been no overt religious symbols in the rooms they were using.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
dkw, I think it may be more of an issue of the orchestra performing during services, rather than performing in the church itself. I could be wrong.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Javert:
Going back to the top of the thread, there are two separate cases. The current orchestra trip includes performance as part of a church service (originally we thought this was merely a concert tacked onto the end of the service, but the pastor described it as integral to the service).
The other issue is an ongoing arrangement where the school has winter and spring concerts at a local church. Americans United sees the two situations (especially taken together) as being an example of excessive entanglement with religion.
Dana: I think the problem is essentially that some time ago (at least 4 years) the school said "We're going to have our concerts at the church from now on, because they have enough space." If they had simply said "We don't have enough space this year, and the church is available, so we'll figure out what else to do later," it wouldn't have been a problem. I also pointed out other problems with the concert arrangements in previous posts.
Funny thing is that my brother went to 6th grade in a church, because the school was overcrowded and they were redistricting. Neither of us thinks that was a problem at all, because it was so obviously a stop-gap, and because there weren't any reasonable alternatives. But it was only one class out of the entire school, and they stopped doing it the following year after they redistricted.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Oh, and tell Bob I miss his humor and insight. But then I post a lot less than I used to also.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The other issue is an ongoing arrangement where the school has winter and spring concerts at a local church. Americans United sees the two situations (especially taken together) as being an example of excessive entanglement with religion.
Hmmm. In my experience, that is my experience in a high school band and orchestra, these particular events (we had similar engagements) were strictly voluntary, and quite a few people didn't volunteer with no stigma attached (although for most, it wasn't due to religious reasons, but not wanting a performance and rehearsal times during the Christmas...or winter break, YMMV).
Some of them were at churches, and some others were Christmas-oriented performances (specifically lots of Christmas music) held at the auditorium at the high school.
An earlier question remains unanswered, though: how much money should the school/city/county be compelled to spend to avoid even the appearance of an entanglement?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dancing a little closer to the line, we’ve let school groups use our parking lot for fundraisers – cheerleaders’ car wash, band boosters’ rummage sale, etc.
Why is that closer to the line? I'd have thought it's much farther away from the line.
quote:Dana: I think the problem is essentially that some time ago (at least 4 years) the school said "We're going to have our concerts at the church from now on, because they have enough space." If they had simply said "We don't have enough space this year, and the church is available, so we'll figure out what else to do later," it wouldn't have been a problem. I also pointed out other problems with the concert arrangements in previous posts.
I have to say I don't see a Lemon-test problem with using church facilities for school functions when the reason is secular - even if other secular arrangements are possible.
I can see reasons for a school not to choose to use such facilities based on parents' wishes. But I see a constitutional requirement to be excessive.
Note that I do think it's relevant in your brother's case as a possible suggestion that the school has ulterior motives. But I can easily see fact situations where everything you've described is true, alternative facilities are available, and holding the concerts in the church is not a constitutional violation.
I think I've said explicitly that the church service performance is almost certainly a violation of the establishment clause, but I'll restate it now to be clear: the church service performance is almost certainly a violation of the establishment clause.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:An earlier question remains unanswered, though: how much money should the school/city/county be compelled to spend to avoid even the appearance of an entanglement?
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, they should spend up to, but not more than, the amount of money they think they will lose defending lawsuits that result from not spending enough money on it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:An earlier question remains unanswered, though: how much money should the school/city/county be compelled to spend to avoid even the appearance of an entanglement?
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, they should spend up to, but not more than, the amount of money they think they will lose defending lawsuits that result from not spending enough money on it.
One of the reasons I'm glad there are now legal organizations that defend organizations from unfounded establishment clause claims.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:One of the reasons I'm glad there are now legal organizations that defend organizations from unfounded establishment clause claims.
I am too. I think it's notable that the ACLU sometimes fills that role.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
Okay, just to complicate the issue a little bit. On my mission, (Yes I am a mormon), One of our church buildings was across the street from a local highschool. At the end of the year, the school would use various rooms in the church to host exams. (the gym, relief society room, and primary room.) I had no problem with that, however with the fierceness of the debate here I would wager that some of you would.
Anyway, the school held exams in the church. But when I and another missionary went to volunteer at the public library, they said that we could not do service there if we wore our missionary nametags. Despite the fact that half the employees there wore crosses around their necks. Hypocrisy?
And as far as band members in a church. I went to public school for 12 years where I got in trouble for bringing a bible to school. I went through 12 years of enforced atheism. I think you can stand an hour of religious activity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:One of the reasons I'm glad there are now legal organizations that defend organizations from unfounded establishment clause claims.
I am too. I think it's notable that the ACLU sometimes fills that role.
I know they've served (1) lots of plaintiffs claiming free exercise violations, including several from evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups. And I know they helped (2) schools out against claims of free exercise violations, usually by raising a defense grounded in the establishment clause.
But I can't think of any where they've been (3) defense counsel for a school accused of establishment clause violations. Can you link an example? You've piqued my curiosity.
Edited to add numbers for easier reference.
[ November 05, 2007, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: The other issue is an ongoing arrangement where the school has winter and spring concerts at a local church.
Are these ongoing arrangements secular concerts, or part of a service? I thought we'd agreed that it was okay to use church space as long as no one was forced to sit through a service?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: An earlier question remains unanswered, though: how much money should the school/city/county be compelled to spend to avoid even the appearance of an entanglement?
I would guess that no one answered it before for the following reason.
I do not think that there is anyone in this thread that is concerned about the *mere appearance* of an entanglement. Thus no one found themselves compelled to answer.
There are plenty of people that are concerned about what they perceive as a *genuine* entanglement though
quote:Philosofickle: I went to public school for 12 years where I got in trouble for bringing a bible to school. I went through 12 years of enforced atheism.
1) People that do not carry Bibles are atheists? 2) I am curious that one would get in trouble for merely bringing a Bible to school, what other context is missing?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think I've said explicitly that the church service performance is almost certainly a violation of the establishment clause, but I'll restate it now to be clear: the church service performance is almost certainly a violation of the establishment clause.
I don't think it is - that is to say, I don't think having a performance as part of a church service necessarily violates the first amendment as it is written. However, I strongly suspect you are correct that the Supreme Court would rule otherwise, based on past rulings. And while the Court can certainly be wrong, it gets to make the final decision nonetheless. (Unless we amend the Constitution to clarify, of course, which is always an option.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I can see reasons for a school not to choose to use such facilities based on parents' wishes. But I see a constitutional requirement to be excessive.
Yeah, I think I've made it clear that I don't see that one as being as problematic as the service on the trip. More of an annoyance to my brother, that maybe makes more sense to him because he's actually there.
Bear in mind I'm getting all of this second hand from him. I think both of us were surprised that A.U. is more concerned about the concerts than the trip, but maybe the information is being distorted in the repeated tellings.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: The current orchestra trip includes performance as part of a church service (originally we thought this was merely a concert tacked onto the end of the service, but the pastor described it as integral to the service).
Using the school to enhance their worship service is a terrible idea.
If the church wants an orchestral performance, they can pay for it themselves, or get volunteers who aren't being graded on it.
Taxpayers paid for those kids to have a musical education, not for some Methodist or Baptist church to have a fancy service to better fill the offering basket.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think it is - that is to say, I don't think having a performance as part of a church service necessarily violates the first amendment as it is written. However, I strongly suspect you are correct that the Supreme Court would rule otherwise, based on past rulings. And while the Court can certainly be wrong, it gets to make the final decision nonetheless.
There's no such thing as "as it is written" in these cases, for the very simple reason that there are dozens of reasonable interpretations of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Anyone who is going to argue, for instance, that spending taxpayer money to support a public school band's performance during a worship service, in a manner which forces school children to sit through that service or forgo a benefit provided to other public school students, is going to have to justify their interpretation of the amendment somehow using arguments very much like the ones the Supreme Court has used in its numerous opinions on the subject.
More importantly, they are going to have to be able to establish why their version of these arguments is somehow representative of the establishment clause "as written" while the Supreme Court ones are not.
Ultimately, "as written" is a chimera simply because the words are very broad and open to multiple meanings.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:I can see reasons for a school not to choose to use such facilities based on parents' wishes. But I see a constitutional requirement to be excessive.
Yeah, I think I've made it clear that I don't see that one as being as problematic as the service on the trip.
You have.
quote:Bear in mind I'm getting all of this second hand from him. I think both of us were surprised that A.U. is more concerned about the concerts than the trip, but maybe the information is being distorted in the repeated tellings.
Very likely. However, the one-time thing matters a lot, especially to them.
Lots of constitutional violations don't require legal action. Some are inconsequential. Some that are consequential - like the performance during services - are often not really ripe for legal correction on their first occurrence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:ACLU Announces Settlement in Case of Christian Barred from Preaching in Rhode Island Prison (7/30/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org
PROVIDENCE, RI - The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of its lawsuit on behalf of a Christian prisoner who has been barred since 2003 from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison.
Wesley Spratt, an inmate at the Adult Correctional Institution (ACI), believes God called on him to preach Christianity to other prisoners at the ACI. Spratt preached during Christian services for seven years before he was unilaterally stopped from doing so based on vague and generalized "security" concerns. A federal district judge initially upheld the ban, but in April the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed that ruling and ordered a trial on the merits of the case. Today's settlement ends the case.
"The ACLU is very pleased with the settlement reached in this case, which allows Mr. Spratt to resume his preaching at the ACI," said ACLU cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger. "I commend the Department of Corrections for its work in adopting a policy designed to fulfill the letter and spirit of both the First Circuit's ruling and Congress' goal of respecting the exercise of religious freedom by incarcerated individuals."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag:
Not a school issue, but here's one:
I think that one fits category (1) from my post above, not (3).
(I added the numbers in the original post for easier reference.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But I can't think of any where they've been (3) defense counsel for a school accused of establishment clause violations. Can you link an example? You've piqued my curiosity.
You're right. I extended my "the ACLU doesn't hate religion" meme too far. All the cases I can think of involve false claims by government organizations of establishment violations which interfered with individual citizens' free exercise.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, the numbers helped
Does the ACLU defend anyone who is being sued? Or do they only initiate suits when rights are being violated?
I suspect they'd defend a student who was told by the school he couldn't bring a bible to school, but then, that's not defense against charges, it's defending someone's rights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:All the cases I can think of involve false claims by government organizations of establishment violations which interfered with individual citizens' free exercise.
quote:Does the ACLU defend anyone who is being sued? Or do they only initiate suits when rights are being violated?
See above. They didn't run the defense, but they filed an amicus. They definitely are more active on the plaintiff side, though.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well here's what I would think. I can think of two ways one could try to call this sort of thing an "establishment of religion" by the public school:
1. If, by attending the worship, the kids are being taught/convinced/told by the school that Christianity is true. I don't believe this is going on, because I think kids recognize the difference between being shown "what other people believe about God" and being told "what is true about God." I believe the students would have no problem understanding that by being invited there they don't have to accept what the congregation of the church accepts. Same thing as if they were to perform at a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist ceremony.
2. If the school is becoming "excessively entangled" with the church, through this activity. I don't think this is true, because there doesn't really seem to be much entanglement. If the school frequently provided the music for the church, that might be excessive. But a one time invitation to come does not seem like the organizations are being intertwined in a way that would lead the linking of church and state.
I don't think either of these represents a serious threat to the wall between church and state. If there is another way it would endanger that wall, let me know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't believe this is going on, because I think kids recognize the difference between being shown "what other people believe about God" and being told "what is true about God." I believe the students would have no problem understanding that by being invited there they don't have to accept what the congregation of the church accepts. Same thing as if they were to perform at a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist ceremony.
Except this school has, apparently, only ever made the orchestra available to a small selection of the various beliefs present in America.
quote: If there is another way it would endanger that wall, let me know.
A. By providing a service that many churches pay for, see kmboots various posts on the subject, the school is providing something of value at taxpayer expense to one church and not another.
B. Since you broadened the inquiry to the entire wall, not just the establishment clause: By forcing a student to choose to either sit through an objectionable religious ceremony - not merely be taught what others believe, but actually participate in some way in their worship - the school is burdening one student's free exercise of religion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except this school has, apparently, only ever made the orchestra available to a small selection of the various beliefs present in America.
quote:A. By providing a service that many churches pay for, see kmboots various posts on the subject, the school is providing something of value at taxpayer expense to one church and not another.
I'd think these both depend on whether or not they'd be available to play for other religions. I do think it would definitely be inappropriate if they accepted a Christian Church's invitation to perform but then refused an invitation from some other religion, unless they have a very compelling reason.
quote:B. Since you broadened the inquiry to the entire wall, not just the establishment clause: By forcing a student to choose to either sit through an objectionable religious ceremony - not merely be taught what others believe, but actually participate in some way in their worship - the school is burdening one student's free exercise of religion.
Actually, this is probably the best argument against it - since one religion might actively prohibit any worshipping of other gods, etc. I'd think the "opt out" option would be sufficient to satisfy this particular problem though, since that seems to be what is done in other cases where school activities conflict with religious exercise. For instance, when someone has an important religious holiday on a school day, it is normal for them to simply not go to school on that day - even though they do probably feel some pressure as a result of being different.
It would probably be a good idea to ask parents first if such a performance would be okay, and then set up the schedule accordingly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Taxpayers paid for those kids to have a musical education, not for some Methodist or Baptist church to have a fancy service to better fill the offering basket.
While I absolutely agree that a public school orchestra should not be playing in a church service, this comment is ridiculous. We're talking about a one time school trip where the church's regular musicians stepped aside so the orchestra could play instead. The church is not making money off this. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd think these both depend on whether or not they'd be available to play for other religions. I do think it would definitely be inappropriate if they accepted a Christian Church's invitation to perform but then refused an invitation from some other religion, unless they have a very compelling reason.
The big problem with this is that (1) many religions don't have a place in their worship for a school band; and (2) there isn't time to appear at all of the most common denominations' services, let alone the less common.
If the school wants to create a mechanism whereby any community group can issue an invitation for a student musicians to perform, then I see no problem allowing churches to also make such requests, provided that (1) all practice, transportation, and other expenses are handled by non-school resources, and (2) any group can submit invitations, not just religious groups. There would also have to be no pressure whatsoever exerted by the school's personnel urging participation.
quote:I'd think the "opt out" option would be sufficient to satisfy this particular problem though, since that seems to be what is done in other cases where school activities conflict with religious exercise.
The difference is that, in general, other things that burden free exercise (such as, say, attending school on Yom Kippur) have a purely secular purpose. Here, the conflict arises specifically because of the school's choice to have the school band attend a religious service.
Moreover, this is a relatively rare event. There are 180+ school days; there are maybe a half dozen outside performances. A student missing a school day simply uses a procedure - making up school work - that exists for a purely secular reason. A student missing one of six band performances has missed a significant part of the benefit made available to students participating in band.
I think the two factors combine in a kind of feedback loop, each making the other factor more serious than it would be alone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The church is not making money off this.
To clarify just in case, my various statements about providing resources to churches are not meant to express any agreement with the idea that churches are making money off the school kids.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I know. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:We're talking about a one time school trip where the church's regular musicians stepped aside so the orchestra could play instead.
Or where the orchestra simply enhanced the musical atmosphere where normally the congregation would simply sing, and provide their own music. Even then, the church's musicians might be paid, but it seems more likely that they are simply members of the congregation who are musically inclined (either that or my wife is being taken advantage of when she songleads for her church).
As far as payment to the church is concerned, in the case of using the church for concerts, paying for the use of the space ensures that the relationship between the school and the church is merely a business deal, whereas if the church offers the space for free it might lead to some kind of unanswered quid pro quo entanglement where the school "owes" the church something intangible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depending on the kind of music the church usually has an "enhanced" musical atmosphere is not a sure thing when it comes to high school musicians. For some churches it would be, for some it wouldn't be except for the nice glow the congregation gets from providing an opportunity for young people.
Glenn, I wouldn't say that your church is taking advantage of your wife. They might be, but quite often professional musicians donate their talents to their parish. I do for mine though I am customarily paid elsewhere.
I think that the point I have been trying to make is that this is likely less an insidious plot to indoctrinate school kids or a plot to wrest free music out of children and more likely a music teacher for whom churches are an accustomed venue using his contacts to provide an opportunity for the kids to perform. It is even possible that he doesn't view providing music for church services as much a religious activity as a professional one.
This doesn't make it a good idea, but it might make it seem less sinister.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, I wouldn't say that your church is taking advantage of your wife.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
As a former student musician, there was a fairly uniform desire among our group: More public performances were better. Different types of music, different venues, different events all helped to relieve the tedium that practice can become. Learning to play an instrument while learning new music was a great boon to me, and made me a better musician if only because it motivated me to practice more often.
My religious beliefs defy classification, though agnostic would be close enough. I'd have had no objections to playing as part of a Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religious ceremony if invited to do so. My love of music overpowers my aversion to religion, and has for as long as I can remember. Then again, if invited I'd be likely to attend any religious ceremony just our of curiosity, so my love of music doesn't have much to overcome.
The only sticking point in this argument is making attending the service mandatory. A public institution crossing that line would have me taking sides against it. But as someone who did play in religious spaces in the past (phenomenal acoustics in some cases), don't deprive all the students of an opportunity to perform if invite, simply on the basis it's at a religious institution, or even a religious service. If congregation is looking for something special to add to a service, and music is what they decide upon, schools are an amazing source of talented musicians to draw upon, and at lease some would welcome the opportunity.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)