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.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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").
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
