Play No Evil!!! Are You Ready for Music Censorship?

[Dendy Jarrett]

I just don't know anymore - when is the absurdity going to end?

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/articles/play-no-evil-are-you-ready-for-music-censorship

 

 

[nat whilk II]

Yeah, well wait 'till the judge hears The Star-Spangled Banner, which has these lines in the last verse:

 

Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto - “In God is our trust”

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

[Mandolin Picker]

Or "Battle Hymn of the Republic"

 

In the beauty of the lilies

Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in his bosom

that transfigures you and me,

As He died to make men holy

let us live to make men free,

His truth is marching on

 

 

[nat whilk II]

I want to make it clear I consider the separation of church and state an extremely vital issue. Personally, I feel like "expressions" of religion should be distinguished from "promotion" of religion in contexts like public schools and such.

 

For example, I feel that the way France prohibits young Muslim women from wearing clothing that are considered to embody a "conspicuous religious symbol" (usually the media goes on about head coverings of various sorts) is way over the line. There's separating the state from religion which I think is absolutley vital, but in this case it seems to me more like separating people from their religion. The message seems to be, "in any context where the state is involved, you will behave as a totally secular person." This seems like cultural imperialism to me.

 

Of course, any way the issue is approached, it's a difficult issue with very difficult lines to draw. I can't help but wonder how much thought the judge in the article cited put into this one - should the schools have all the textbooks on Harmony censored so they have no hymns or chorales? Even something as inocuous as "This Land Was Made For You and Me" could be seen to have "creationist" implications.

 

The idea that a purely instrumental rendering of a song is somehow promoting religion seems pretty ridiculous to me. On the other hand, if there was a song that became the well-known theme song for a notoriously aggressive religious group (or any other group with a notorious axe to grind) I don't think I'd set the band up to play it, instrumental or not. Again, there are no clear-cut lines - any solution will seem to go too far in one direction or the other to someone.

 

My takeaway from this latest farce is that I simply wish people would be more tolerant and less tightly-wound all the time - and not run off to the legal system to "make a point on principle" constantly.

 

Beware people who are all the time doing things "for the principle of the thing".

 

nat whilk ii

 

[philboking]

I think people are slowly coming to the realization that religion was created by man to control other people, rather than connect them to God.

Much like law was created to control other people rather than connect them to justice...

[gubu]

Great points well made in that article.

 

As a secular atheist, I can't see any benefit from prohibiting communities from carrying on their traditions through music. It's not as if the tune was being used for sectarian taunting, as happens in some flashpoint regions.

[Craig Vecchione]

Now the halftime air was sweet perfume

While the sergeants played a marching tune

We all got up to dance

Oh, but we never got the chance

 

'Cause the players tried to take the field

The marching band refused to yield

Do you recall what was revealed

The day the music died?

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

It's probably a sign that Americans have become too fat and lazy or, at the very least, have jumped the shark that we even have the time to worry and argue about such nonsense as the religious implications of marching band music

[WRGKMC]

I wish all these groups would grow up. Take that energy they're wasting on their fellow citizens and actually do some good with it. I see all of these kinds of things as one group forcing their ideals on another. If you cant win your argument based on ideals, then maybe you should rethink what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it. Using the law to force people to change has only one outcome. Resentment and if you are the one forcing the changes, you should beware of the consequences. Chances are you'll be the next target and deserve to get what you gave others.

 

Spencer Tracy was in an old movie called Inherit the Wind. I love the part towards the end when the trial is over and he has the discussion with the Atheist reporter. The reporter finds Tracy actually cared about the others lawyer and saw through his zealots beliefs and appreciated the man himself even though he defended the teachers right to teach Darwin to the students.

 

Tracy said, something like, "You poor old sap. You isn't got nothing and nobody. You wont even have anyone to pull the grass up over you when you die". The reporter thought deeply about this then he said, I wont be completely alone, you'll be there.

 

This acknowledgement by the reporter has many possible interpretations. The biggest is you can be tolerant and friendly with people who don't have the same views you do. It can also mean life is short and we shouldn't be wasting our time on things that don't matter.

 

I surely don't see some high school band as being some terrorist threat. I can guarantee you if you were in dire need of help, in an accident for example, I know which group would be more likely to step over your body and let you die.

 

Music is "all" about working with other people. People who have similar beliefs and others who don't. You're never going to be a success in music or any other trade if you don't have tolerance for others beliefs and learn to get along with other people.

 

The US is the melting pot of the world. Its what makes our heritage rich. You've had these little clicks of people who are essentially war lords trying to force their beliefs on others. Music isn't the cause of division, its the one thing that has the ability to unite people. Its narrow minded bigot's who think their beliefs are more important then the other guys. Using kids and the music is about as low as you can go.

 

When people cross the line they should be made to realize their method of changing other peoples views are unacceptable. When you get to the point where you think music is the cause of evil, you really lost contact with reality. All music occurs in the realm of dreams and fantasy. If you find music offensive, the reason you have thin skin, isn't caused by the music. Its your own conscious that's a problem and only you can choose to deal with it.

 

Blaming others is what little 5 year old kids do. Grow up and stop thinking you're the center of the universe. You'll find music isn't your enemy nor the people who are playing it. Its your own projection you hear in the music you dislike. Learn to control your fantasy and the problem disappears.

[Craig Vecchione]

Separation of church and state have been maligned so badly by SCOTUS that it's almost impossible to discern how the Constitution applies. The founders' intent was that the state would not be able to force anyone to practice any faith or pay any form of taxes or fees in the support of a religion. This has been stretched to the point that any voluntary form of religious expression within the confines of a public place is prohibited.

 

Maybe they should write some ironic/generic/lyrics lyrics to the tunes, and have someone sing them just loud enough to be heard from the field. Then it's no longer a "hymn" by any definition, and it should be legal if the original song is in the public domain. Beat 'em at their own game.

[blue2blue]

I support strict separation of church and state. The 'In God We Trust' motto wasn't adopted until I was already 5 years old. It is an abomination that has no place in a secular government.

 

I don't want to impose my religious or philosophical views on others -- and I don't want them -- theist, atheist, or anything in between -- imposing theirs on me.

 

Period.

[Dendy Jarrett]

I hear everyone's argument but again, this isn't even about religion or politics as much as it is about absurdity. Or even definition and interpretation. D

[blue2blue]

No. It's about separation of church and state. When public tax money is used in the presentation of religious materials, it is a violation of Constitutional principles. You can try to 'define' it by your own, idiosyncratic and logic-free precepts, but your efforts will fail to persuade those with a copy of the US Constitution and basic logical abilities.

[nat whilk II]

I support strict separation of church and state. The 'In God We Trust' motto wasn't adopted until I was already 5 years old. It is an abomination that has no place in a secular government.

 

I don't want to impose my religious or philosophical views on others -- and I don't want them -- theist, atheist, or anything in between -- imposing theirs on me.

 

Period.

 

Just curious - do you consider the case in question - the band playing an instrumental version of a hymn at a game - to be a case of imposing religious views that was justifiably squashed? (I'm not interested in debating the point...just interested in how reasonable minds can disagree - since most of the responses in this thread have been in disagreement with the judge.)

 

Seems to me 99% of everyone agrees on the separation of church and state as an overarching principle - the devil is in the details as to interpretation. Especially in an age where the state is increasingly involved in so many areas of life and culture, we're set up for endless controversy on this.

 

nat whilk ii

[blue2blue]

Of course a publicly funded school band playing a well known Christian hymn (instrumentally or not) at a publicly funded school event is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

I'm afraid, Nat, that you're sadly deluded on the percentage of people who believe the establishment clause of the First Amendment means what it says.

 

Freedom of rational thought from the intrusion of the imposition of other people's religions ranks painfully low in the American psyche. Neo-fascists, 'Identitarians,' and Christian supremacists take heart.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st5.htm

 

Christianity As State Religion Supported By One-Third Of Americans, Poll Finds

[blue2blue]

FWIW, I've also rubbed a lot of outspoken atheists the wrong way, because I don't buy their proselytizing or silently tolerate their blanket demonization of religion. So this sword cuts both ways.

 

 

Oh, and -- for the record -- I, personally, listen to a LOT of religious music, with and without words -- from across multiple religions. But I do it on my own time. I find man's quest for meaning in the universe poignant.

 

And I'm all for the objective, distanced, comparative study of multiple religions.

 

If more people pursued such a course of study and thought, I think there would be a lot less simplistic, culturally blinkered thinking about one's native religion (if any) and about religion in general, not to mention providing food for what might prove profound thinking about the nature of all this.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I guess I'm in trouble, because to me, all music is spiritual in nature. Playing it is, listening to it is... it's not about religion, but to me, music is very spiritual on a fundamental level. YMMV.

[Dendy Jarrett]

I guess I'm in trouble' date=' because to me, all music is spiritual in nature. Playing it is, listening to it is... it's not about [i']religion[/i], but to me, music is very spiritual on a fundamental level. YMMV.

 

BINGO!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!

[Craig Vecchione]

I hear everyone's argument but again' date=' this isn't even about religion or politics as much as it is about absurdity. Or even definition and interpretation. D[/quote']

 

Indeed, it's the absurdity of today's politics, religion and general social state. People are basically lost.

[blue2blue]

I don't want the government telling me what music to listen to, either.

[Craig Vecchione]

I guess I'm in trouble' date=' because to me, all music is spiritual in nature. Playing it is, listening to it is... it's not about [i']religion[/i], but to me, music is very spiritual on a fundamental level. YMMV.

 

Perfect!!!

 

I'll start with prog band Yes as an example...nobody understands their lyrics, but they sound awesome and somehow make sense when I hear them sung well. I may not understand or care what they're saying, but on a spiritual level they speak to me. I also can't directly relate to, say, gangsta rap, but it's infectious and pulls me in. It's amazingly sad that people will say they love all kinds of music, but when you start talking about religious music, suddenly it's "us and them" and the walls come up. All of the sudden playing music is *imposing will* on someone.

 

Yes are talking about something I don't get. Gangsta rappers live in a world different than mine. The religious composers were relating to their world in exactly the same way, but for some reason that is deemed offensive, and we have to start arguing about it.

[Mandolin Picker]

I don't want the government telling me what music to listen to' date=' either. [/quote']

 

Ironically, that is exactly what happened in this case. The government, through the judiciary, told the band what they can and cannot play, and by extension, what you can and cannot listen to. If you're not allowed to play it, you sure can't listen to it.

 

I wonder where the judiciary will draw the line for a song like "Greensleeves"/"What Child Is This?" Same melody, but both well known for secular folk and religious lyrics.

[Vito Corleone]

Separation of church and state have been maligned so badly by SCOTUS that it's almost impossible to discern how the Constitution applies. The founders' intent was that the state would not be able to force anyone to practice any faith or pay any form of taxes or fees in the support of a religion. This has been stretched to the point that any voluntary form of religious expression within the confines of a public place is prohibited.

 

Maybe they should write some ironic/generic/lyrics lyrics to the tunes, and have someone sing them just loud enough to be heard from the field. Then it's no longer a "hymn" by any definition, and it should be legal if the original song is in the public domain. Beat 'em at their own game.

 

That's the mindset that's the problem here on both sides of such debates. That it's a contest between two sides that must somehow be won. "Culture wars" and all that nonsense. But the grievance industry is pretty big. Lots of money to be made selling ideology to folks who wish to place the blame for all their woes on "those people over there".

 

But, the truth is that, while overreaches exist from time to time, there are very few examples anyone can point to of public expressions of religion in public places by INDIVIDUALS ever being prohibited. And the courts---SCOTUS included-- have been pretty solid on supporting the INDIVIDUAL in such cases. It's when that individual is an employee of the state or representing the state in some capacity that it becomes an issue.

 

Is that more than the founders intended 225 years ago? Probably. Does it make sense for a nation operating in 2015? Also probably.

 

[Vito Corleone]

I guess I'm in trouble' date=' because to me, all music is spiritual in nature. Playing it is, listening to it is... it's not about [i']religion[/i], but to me, music is very spiritual on a fundamental level. YMMV.

 

You probably are in trouble. All sorts of folks who are going to take issue with all that non-denominational, un-religious, new-agey spiritual gobbedly gook. This here is a CHRISTIAN nation!

 

What's next---you gonna go around declaring "Happy Holidays" at Christmastime or something, Phil?

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

I wonder where the judiciary will draw the line for a song like "Greensleeves"/"What Child Is This?" Same melody, but both well known for secular folk and religious lyrics.

 

Good point, but I think the line is pretty easy to draw. At least in this case. The band was playing "How Great Thou Art". This isn't a traditional folk melody that someone co-opted and added religious words to later and therefore some folks know it better in that form. Nor is it an instrumental Bach piece with a universally known melody that was originally written for religious purposes---a fact that few people outside of music historians even would realize.

 

It's "How Great Thou Art". A song that has virtually no existence outside of Christian circles and that probably no one knows outside the context of the lyrics.

 

(Note that this isn't some song that is broadly spiritual in nature. It's specifically Christian and probably among the Top 10 all-time popular "Christian" songs.)

 

Playing the melody to "How Great Thou Art" and trying to claim that, because no one is singing the lyrics, the song is no longer religious is about as silly as trying to claim that playing just the melody to "America The Beautiful" removes it from any patriotic context.

 

I'm all for a good "where should we draw the line" discussion. But when the only line drawn thus far is one that is so bold and obvious, I'd argue we're getting way ahead of ourselves.