posted
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 ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
