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

[Beck]

(Long Post Alert)

 

IMO that is very shortsighted and small minded of the judge who handed down that decision. The separation of church and state has more and more in recent history been wrongly interpreted as the elimination of any vestige of church. What is supposed to be a neutral position so that the church does not control government has become an anti position, so vehemently opposed to religious expression that our history is being rewritten to diminish its importance. I agree at the core music is music no matter what the inspiration and in a case like this should be categorized as, "Traditional." Stuff like this happening in the public schools is why I sent my sons through a non-denominational Christian High School.

 

By the way, someone needs to tell this judge he better step in quick and tell the Air Force, Navy and other branches of the armed services that they cannot have official hymns. Nothing is more, "State" than a country's military.

 

The two hymns below are benedictions... asking for God's favor and grace. They are Christian hymns, quite obviously calling on the Judeo-Christian God. And they don't just play the music; they sing the words.

 

This is the U.S. Air Force Hymn and goes out to my late father, a decorated WWII and Korean War vet. You can find it and other hymns on the official U.S. Air Force site here... http://www.music.af.mil/ceremonial.asp

 

"These recordings are approved by the Department of the Air Force for use in public service broadcasting, recruiting, educational activities, troop morale and retention."

 

[video=youtube;GTpCrGm5lFA]

 

 

And below, the official Navy hymn goes out to my youngest son who is currently serving in the U.S. Navy. The Navy has it with lyrics and sample audio on the official Navy site here… http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=172

 

[video=youtube;ic8zMkYwnq8]

 

I could list other traditional, but uniquely American songs that evoke God in the lyrics, including "God Bless America," "America The Beautiful," and the already mentioned, "Battle Hymn of the Republic." I could go further and list all the pop artists/bands who are Christian and/or have written Christian and other religious themed songs and a list of those songs that would have to be banned from public school functions as well, but I'm sure everyone here can figure that out. Gutting events of all religious based theme in state supported institutions is the same as imposing atheism, which is also a religion... a secular one without a deity.

 

Censorship is the greatest threat to a free society, and the greatest impediment to a free exchange of ideas and the betterment of society. Whether it's censorship of music, books, art, movies, TV series, we as artists should care.

 

 

[nat whilk II]

 

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.

 

Of course the song is a religious song. But it's religious only in the lyrics. The melody has no magic ability to convey religious messages, to make a religious case, to sway people towards religion. It's just a melody. It's also a great piece to set for a high school band to play in musical terms. It seems just as obvious to me that it's silly to ban it on First Amendment grounds as it seems obvious to you that it should be so banned.

 

And as a precedent for carrying the judge's logic forward as a precedent, it would seem that it could lead to a huge exercise in censorship and a carving out of one of our culture's most valuable musical resources from education based on "connotations". However, in a democracy, "logical conclusions" are rarely reached and that's fine with me - a nice uncomfortable compromise full of logical contradictions that leaves all the uncompromising types fuming is as good as it gets.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

Of course the song is a religious song. But it's religious only in the lyrics. The melody has no magic ability to convey religious messages, to make a religious case, to sway people towards religion. It's just a melody. It's also a great piece to set for a high school band to play in musical terms. It seems just as obvious to me that it's silly to ban it on First Amendment grounds as it seems obvious to you that it should be so banned.

 

 

No, it's not "just a melody" any more than the America the Beautiful is "just a melody". Do you not feel pangs of patriotism whenever you hear that song? Or only when someone sings the lyrics?

 

And, for the record, I think that the melody of How Great Thou Art is a horrible song for a marching band to play.

 

The reason to ban it is the intent. Why was that song chosen? Because it's a great traditional "march"? Hardly. Was this a program of "great religious songs throughout history"? No.

 

Songs are chosen to be performed with certain intent. Why would a public school marching band teacher decide to add this one to the program?

 

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

Censorship is the greatest threat to a free society, and the greatest impediment to a free exchange of ideas and the betterment of society. Whether it's censorship of music, books, art, movies, TV series, we as artists should care.

 

 

 

This isn't "censorship". Censorship would be if the government told you or I that we couldn't perform the song at a public event. That doesn't happen. And that isn't what happened here.

 

Send your kids to a Christian school if you want them to perform Christian songs with the marching band.

 

Something tells me the same people crying "censorship!" because the marching band isn't going to play "How Great Thou Art" would be the most of the same ones having a conniption if their kids were told they had to play a Muslim tune.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

Which I think sums up the intention of the first amendment accurately and succinctly.

 

I don't want any government entity to tell me what I can and cannot play.

 

When they do, let me know and I'll be the first to protest with you.

 

I

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

In no way do I see a school band playing music as helping the government establish a religion, unless a) the government required them to play that music, b) the government forbid their playing music with other religious overtones but allowed "How Great Thou Art," or c) forced people who didn't want to play that music to do so. Each would clearly violate the Free Exercise clause.

 

 

 

It's pretty simple. If I send my kid to a public school and enroll them in the music program, I don't want my taxpayer dollars going towards making him or her learn religious songs simply because the music teacher is religious and wants them to learn them. Anymore than I want the English teacher using the Book of Matthew to teach English to my kids either. And no, I shouldn't have to take the ridiculous stand of insisting my kid "sit out" certain songs or parts of English. I shouldn't have to do that. My tax dollars shouldn't go towards "How Great Thou Art" in the first place.

 

When tax dollars are at work, keep religion out of it. Same rules for everyone across the board, regardless of their faith. Problem solved.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

I'm not sure about that. Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution. The first amendment simply says:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

That's it.

 

 

Exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. SCOTUS has spoken on this at length, and they've decided that the Founders must've wanted "Separation of church and state" because they mentioned "The wall of separation" in their letters. But they didn't include this in the wording of the First Amendment. They also mentioned in their letters about the need to prevent government from establishing a state religion (or in the case of several states at that time...to dissolve such establishments) or in forcing people to pay for such religions

 

While I fully "get" that my paying school taxes that go to pay for a band leader who chooses to include a hymn in the marching band repertoire could be interpreted as state-funded religion, I don't agree that preventing this isn't a violation of the freedom of speech (and by SCOTUS' interpretations *expression*) that's also in the 1st Amendment.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

Exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post. SCOTUS has spoken on this at length, and they've decided that the Founders must've wanted "Separation of church and state" because they mentioned "The wall of separation" in their letters. But they didn't include this in the wording of the First Amendment. They also mentioned in their letters about the need to prevent government from establishing a state religion (or in the case of several states at that time...to dissolve such establishments) or in forcing people to pay for such religions

 

Except that isn't what has happened. You aren't going to find anywhere where SCOTUS decided that "this is what the Founders must've wanted" because Jefferson used the term "separation of church and state" in a letter once.

 

What it is about is deciding fair application of the 1st amendment. People talk about slippery slopes of "what's next if we don't allow a school marching band to play "How Great Thou Art" at a football game, without acknowledging that those slippery slopes slide both ways. If the schoolteacher wants to include religious material in his teachings then he shouldn't be working at a public school. Lines have to be drawn somewhere and the only logical place to draw these sorts of lines is simply to say nobody working for the state gets to use religion as part of their job as a representative of the state.

 

Otherwise, where might THAT end? Should a Muslim math teacher be including parts of the Koran in his algebra classes? Somehow I think the good citizens of Rankin County, Mississippi would have a different take on that one, don't you?

 

 

While I fully "get" that my paying school taxes that go to pay for a band leader who chooses to include a hymn in the marching band repertoire could be interpreted as state-funded religion, I don't agree that preventing this isn't a violation of the freedom of speech (and by SCOTUS' interpretations *expression*) that's also in the 1st Amendment.

 

It isn't a violation of the 1st amendment for this one major reason:

 

If this were about, say, the teacher wanting to listen to How Great Thou Art on his boombox during his lunch break, that might be one thing. But it's not. This isn't about his individual religious expression. It's about what he is instructing the kids to perform. Saying "well, the kids don't have to participate if they don't want" isn't enough. As a parent, I shouldn't have to sift through every song my kid is asked to perform with the band and then tell him which ones he can and can not participate in. What's the problem? Isn't there enough good melodies available for marching music out there that are completely secular for this teacher to choose from?

 

Implicit in the freedom of religion is a freedom FROM religion if one chooses as well. What the courts have interpreted over the years is that the only way for the law to be applied most fairly to all citizens is for the government to take as secular an approach to things as is possible. That simply saying "well, as long as the state isn't directly funding a specific religion, it's all good" isn't enough.

 

Jefferson was able to see it correctly pretty early on when he wrote about the "wall of separation between church and state". So correctly that his interpretation has so often been cited that many people believe those exact words are in the constitution.

 

They are not. But that is irrelevant because it IS what the words mean from a legal standpoint.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

So, can't learn Bach?

 

I covered this already in another post. There is a huge difference between a song like "How Great Thou Art" that HAS no existence outside of Christianity and a universally known Bach melody that may have been religiously inspired.

 

 

The object is to learn music. I don't care about the source as long as it's not used to indoctrinate.

 

"Used to indoctrinate" is a red-herring. The Constitution says nothing about "indoctrination" as the line that needs to be crossed either.

 

Yes, the object is to learn music. Fortunately, there is a practically infinite number of wonderful secular songs that can be chosen from for teaching children. "How Great Thou Art" can remain in Sunday School where I learned it.

 

Frankly, I can't imagine that my HS band teacher would have even considered such a song back in the 70s. Our big number was "Sing Sing Sing".

 

 

I'm not going to become a Jehovah's Witness because I play a Prince song, or if I did a cover version of it.

 

Of course not. But again, not the point.

 

 

Thing is, the first amendment work both ways. If the school is trying to establish Christianity as the "preferred" religion for its students, that violates the first amendment. We don't know the frequency of songs; at one extreme if all the songs are religious, that's highly suspect but if common/popular songs are not included because they're Christian, that's suspect as well.

 

I would be on your side if this were about, as others have suggested, yanking "Greensleeves" because it also has been used with religious lyrics, or patriotic songs that include religious references in some verses. But again, that's not what happened here. This is the use of a completely, wholely, 100% Christian hymn.

 

But it seems that what you're asking the courts to do is for them to look at the entire musical program and then make a call based on the frequency of religious songs and decide at what point it has reached "indoctrination"? What's the acceptable percentage under the constitution? 5%? 10%? 50%? That'd not only be an impossible job for the courts to do, but has no constitutional basis. How about 0%? Then we've got simple, easy rules for everyone.

 

What these situations call for is judgement, not knee jerk reactions. I just don't see how a marching band playing How Great Thou Art at half-time represents state establishment of religion.

 

 

I'm really sorry for the strict constructionists out there, but we went far past the establishment clause meaning only a state-established religion many, many decades ago. Some may want to go back to living in 1787 when interpreting it that narrowly might have made sense. I don't.

 

There are all sorts of places for kids to learn and play and enjoy "How Great Thou Art" in our society that are 100% free from government intrusion. Send your kids to one of those places if that's what you prefer. The government won't stop you. They aren't going to shut down religious schools or shut down the dozen or so Christian channels on my satellite TV or radio. Religion is completely safe in America.

 

It just has NO place whatsoever in public schools.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

And let me make one thing clear. Do I want to hear a marching band play How Great Thou Art during half-time? NO. I personally do not want overtly religious music to be played by a high school bsnd. Do I feel my desires trump the first amendment? NO. I'm not going to let my personal preference prevent freedom of expression. I'm not going to TELL people what they can or cannot play' date=' although I have every right to persuade them not to and get others to join me in protesting it. That's very different from having the Feds dictate what is or is not acceptable music.[/quote']

 

Who's expression is being prevented here?

 

Explain to me how the constitution allows for the schoolteacher to express his religion by having a bunch of kids play a religious song?

 

Teaching school isn't about free speech or religion for the school teacher. It's about teaching school. It's a freakin' job that they get paid to do with taxpayer dollars.

 

The teacher has no freedom to put his religious beliefs into the school curriculum. He works for the government and the government has no right to religious freedom. THAT'S what the first amendment is about.

 

Go teach Sunday School if you need to express your faith by making little kids perform religious material.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

It would be different if this were an individual student who wanted to perform this song. It's not about that. This is about it being part of the school curriculum.

 

It has already been decided that INDIVIDUALS have the right to perform religious songs in school. There was a case a few years ago where a young girl wanted to do so as part of a school talent show and the school said she couldn't.

 

She and the ACLU took the school to court and won.

 

http://njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/122106/njJudgeOkaysReligious.html

[blue2blue]

 

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.

 

I don't know if you're just confused, willfully trying to distort the story, or simply ignorant of the principles involved but, no, the Constitution of the United States proscribed it. The court upheld that interpretation. That is the court's job: to analyze the legal issues and test them against Constitutional measure.

 

And, by the way, the courts do not go out looking for issues to rule on.

 

A citizen or citizens brought this complaint because they felt their rights were being violated. The court agreed.

 

You don't. You're entitled to hold an opinion, even that will never see the light of reason. But, thankfully, you are not a judge.

[Vito Corleone]

One last example...

 

School prayer, where students in classes were expected to do a daily invocation of a specific deity = state establishing a religion = violation of first amendment = banworthy.

 

 

But maybe the teacher is religious and he likes the prayer and wants to recite it for himself every morning and, as such, asks the kids do it too? Hey, they don't HAVE to do it. They can sit it out if they don't like it...right?

 

Doesn't he have the 'individual right' to ask the kids to recite this prayer with him? Hey...it's only for a couple of minutes out of the whole day....right?

 

Or what if he just has them hum "How Great Thou Art" every morning instead? I mean...it's not even the words being used. How are they being indoctrinated?

 

Sounds silly? Yes. But, legally speaking, no different from what he is doing with the marching band.

 

That's why the only logical judgment call for the courts to make is to draw the line at "leave your religious beliefs at home when you're on the government clock."

 

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

One last point (hopefully ) I'd like to make here:

 

There have been calls for the courts to use 'judgment' and I agree. And that's exactly what they've done here.

 

They didn't say the school band couldn't play "Greensleeves" or "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or "Purple Rain". They said they couldn't play "How Great Thou Art".

 

They didn't prevent a teacher or student's INDIVIDUAL religious expression (which is the only thing the first amendment protects), they said the song couldn't be part of the school curriculum.

 

So I think they used great judgment. And quite proper judgment.

 

 

 

 

[blue2blue]

 

I'm not sure about that. Separation of church and state does not appear in the constitution. The first amendment simply says:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

That's it.

 

It seems to me that the band was primarily exercising their right to play music that would appeal to their target audience, but if they were indeed exercising their religion, the first amendment allows for that. I really don't think you could argue that the band was acting in according with a law passed by Congress respecting an establishment of religion. The judge, by not permitting them to play it, was actually going against the spirit of the first amendment (although technically he wasn't, because he wasn't Congress). Now, if Congress mandated a law that high school bands had to play Christian-related songs, THAT would indeed by a flagrant violation of the first amendment.

 

I'm no constitutional scholar but my understanding is that the purpose the 1st amendment was to encourage a plurality of ideas, without having any fear to express those ideas, and prevent the government from restricting the expression of ideas.

 

In no way do I see a school band playing music as helping the government establish a religion, unless a) the government required them to play that music, b) the government forbid their playing music with other religious overtones but allowed "How Great Thou Art," or c) forced people who didn't want to play that music to do so. Each would clearly violate the Free Exercise clause.

 

Freedom is about...well, freedom. I see no legal justification for what the judge did, and I'd like to see what he cited in his rulings as precedent.

 

But really, to ascribe serious, freedom-threatening import to what a marching band plays at a football game strikes me as pure silliness given the caseload of most courts. What would bother me is if they played it out of tune. Then again, I wouldn't recognize "How Great Thou Art" if it hit me in the head, so I wouldn't even know that the government was using a high school marching band to indoctrinate me into a state religion.

 

Fortunately, the courts tend to be closer readers of the US Constitution than many in this thread.

 

Establishment Clause

 

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

-- Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

 

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

~Founder Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

[blue2blue]

(Long Post Alert)

 

IMO that is very shortsighted and small minded of the judge who handed down that decision. The separation of church and state has more and more in recent history been wrongly interpreted as the elimination of any vestige of church. What is supposed to be a neutral position so that the church does not control government has become an anti position, so vehemently opposed to religious expression that our history is being rewritten to diminish its importance. I agree at the core music is music no matter what the inspiration and in a case like this should be categorized as, "Traditional." Stuff like this happening in the public schools is why I sent my sons through a non-denominational Christian High School.

 

[...]

 

 

Let's go to the Founders on this issue...

 

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

~Founder George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

 

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

~Founder Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

 

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

~Founder Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

 

10. “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”

~Founder Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

 

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

~Founder James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

 

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

~Founder Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

 

“It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”

~Founder George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

 

“Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”

~Founder Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788]

 

“Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious

liberty. We are almost the only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject to persecution. But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different. Systems of religious error have been adopted, in times of ignorance. It has been the interest of tyrannical kings, popes, and prelates, to maintain these errors. When the clouds of ignorance began to vanish, and the people grew more enlightened, there was no other way to keep them in error, but to prohibit their altering their religious opinions by severe persecuting laws. In this way persecution became general throughout Europe.”

~Founder Oliver Ellsworth, Philip B Kurland and Ralph Lerner (eds.), The Founder’s Constitution, University of Chicago Press, 1987, Vol. 4, p.638

 

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”

~Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

 

Even many of the overtly religious among the founders believed in the importance of separation of state from church:

“The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.”

~Founder Noah Webster, calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785

 

 

[blue2blue]

 

Which I think sums up the intention of the first amendment accurately and succinctly.

 

I don't want any government entity to tell me what I can and cannot play.

 

That's fine -- on your own time. (Heck, I'm listening to Conductus: Mater patris et filia as I write this.)

 

But I think it's downright bizarre that you can't see there is a difference between your private activities and government sanctioned, taxpayer supported activities.

 

Downright bizarre.

[nat whilk II]

I appreciate this thread - it's inspired me to rethink how I stand on the separation of church and state issue and clarify some things to myself.

 

I'm not going to go on about the details of the case in point - I remain unconvinced that the band playing the melody of a hymn is enough of a religious statement to constitute a promotion or favoring of religion. It just seems too petty of an event to merit serious analysis, so I'm done with it.

 

As to education and schools. The schools teach certain subjects that deal with human culture as it really is, the good old liberal arts - history, music, visual arts, theatre, literature, etc. So you start there and you have religion as a fact, as data, as reality, in the warp and woof of these things. The schools can't expunge the religion from these subjects without doing violence to truth and honesty. Hundreds, thousands of instructors, all of them with their personal bundles of biases and convictions, teaching about these things, usually their personal take comes out implicitly or in a few cases, explicitly.

 

So there will be controversy as to how to teach these liberal-arts sorts of classes and maintain impartiality. It's impossible in the absolute to do so. But the goal has to remain there - like the north star, we use it to progress in the right direction, but we will never arrive at the star itself.

 

Then, one step further. The schools teach the practical skills of the arts. And the arts are self-expressions at the core, at the same time they all have their traditional, cultural expressions. The musical arts and poetry in particular have traditions and histories that are filled with religion as inspiration and context. And you have students who also have their religions and their cultures.

 

So my question is: how can you teach students about the arts, the history, the traditions, and the practice, without having religion explicitly involved? How can you tell a student that his or her art should proceed from the deepest totality of themselves, but they have to leave out the religious stuff?

 

So I've lead myself back to my distinction between religious expression and religious promotion. The former I think should be basically allowed in public schools, the latter banned. There will be an infinite number of grey situations to parse, yes. Oh, well. Life in a democracy where somehow, freedom of speech (expression) and freedom from imposition (promotion) has to occur simultaneously - it's a pickle, no question. But as a principle, education should support people in their particular cultural expressions, but not in such as way that any particular culture or religion is favored or promoted. It would be easier if somehow all the religion could be left out - but I contend that it can't be done without lobotomizing the liberal arts and handcuffing particular artists-in-training.

 

This is as clear as I've been able to formulate how I feel in the topic - I've posted it not to state absolute truth, but for comment and correction only.

 

nat whilk ii

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Except that isn't what has happened. You aren't going to find anywhere where SCOTUS decided that "this is what the Founders must've wanted" because Jefferson used the term "separation of church and state" in a letter once.

 

Oh that's not true at all. I google'd "scotus separation of church and state" and my first hit was:

 

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9611/roots.html

In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black, in writing for the majority, stated: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

 

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

I appreciate this thread - it's inspired me to rethink how I stand on the separation of church and state issue and clarify some things to myself.

 

 

 

I'm not going to go on about the details of the case in point - I remain unconvinced that the band playing the melody of a hymn is enough of a religious statement to constitute a promotion or favoring of religion. It just seems too petty of an event to merit serious analysis, so I'm done with it.

 

 

 

As to education and schools. The schools teach certain subjects that deal with human culture as it really is, the good old liberal arts - history, music, visual arts, theatre, literature, etc. So you start there and you have religion as a fact, as data, as reality, in the warp and woof of these things. The schools can't expunge the religion from these subjects without doing violence to truth and honesty. Hundreds, thousands of instructors, all of them with their personal bundles of biases and convictions, teaching about these things, usually their personal take comes out implicitly or in a few cases, explicitly.

 

 

 

So there will be controversy as to how to teach these liberal-arts sorts of classes and maintain impartiality. It's impossible in the absolute to do so. But the goal has to remain there - like the north star, we use it to progress in the right direction, but we will never arrive at the star itself.

 

 

 

Then, one step further. The schools teach the practical skills of the arts. And the arts are self-expressions at the core, at the same time they all have their traditional, cultural expressions. The musical arts and poetry in particular have traditions and histories that are filled with religion as inspiration and context. And you have students who also have their religions and their cultures.

 

 

 

So my question is: how can you teach students about the arts, the history, the traditions, and the practice, without having religion explicitly involved? How can you tell a student that his or her art should proceed from the deepest totality of themselves, but they have to leave out the religious stuff?

 

 

 

So I've lead myself back to my distinction between religious expression and religious promotion. The former I think should be basically allowed in public schools, the latter banned. There will be an infinite number of grey situations to parse, yes. Oh, well. Life in a democracy where somehow, freedom of speech (expression) and freedom from imposition (promotion) has to occur simultaneously - it's a pickle, no question. But as a principle, education should support people in their particular cultural expressions, but not in such as way that any particular culture or religion is favored or promoted. It would be easier if somehow all the religion could be left out - but I contend that it can't be done without lobotomizing the liberal arts and handcuffing particular artists-in-training.

 

 

 

This is as clear as I've been able to formulate how I feel in the topic - I've posted it not to state absolute truth, but for comment and correction only.

 

 

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

 

That's a whole load of strawmen there. No one has stopped schools from teaching about different faiths in history or liberals arts or comparative religion courses or suggested we do so, have they?

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

Oh that's not true at all. I google'd "scotus separation of church and state" and my first hit was:

 

 

 

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9611/roots.html

 

In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black, in writing for the majority, stated: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good catch! I stand corrected on that. I'll take it though. It IS clearly the intent of the clause for at least one of the founders. And certainly the most practical from a 21st century application standpoint.

[blue2blue]

I appreciate this thread - it's inspired me to rethink how I stand on the separation of church and state issue and clarify some things to myself.

 

I'm not going to go on about the details of the case in point - I remain unconvinced that the band playing the melody of a hymn is enough of a religious statement to constitute a promotion or favoring of religion. It just seems too petty of an event to merit serious analysis, so I'm done with it.

 

As to education and schools. The schools teach certain subjects that deal with human culture as it really is, the good old liberal arts - history, music, visual arts, theatre, literature, etc. So you start there and you have religion as a fact, as data, as reality, in the warp and woof of these things. The schools can't expunge the religion from these subjects without doing violence to truth and honesty. Hundreds, thousands of instructors, all of them with their personal bundles of biases and convictions, teaching about these things, usually their personal take comes out implicitly or in a few cases, explicitly.

 

So there will be controversy as to how to teach these liberal-arts sorts of classes and maintain impartiality. It's impossible in the absolute to do so. But the goal has to remain there - like the north star, we use it to progress in the right direction, but we will never arrive at the star itself.

 

Then, one step further. The schools teach the practical skills of the arts. And the arts are self-expressions at the core, at the same time they all have their traditional, cultural expressions. The musical arts and poetry in particular have traditions and histories that are filled with religion as inspiration and context. And you have students who also have their religions and their cultures.

 

So my question is: how can you teach students about the arts, the history, the traditions, and the practice, without having religion explicitly involved? How can you tell a student that his or her art should proceed from the deepest totality of themselves, but they have to leave out the religious stuff?

 

So I've lead myself back to my distinction between religious expression and religious promotion. The former I think should be basically allowed in public schools, the latter banned. There will be an infinite number of grey situations to parse, yes. Oh, well. Life in a democracy where somehow, freedom of speech (expression) and freedom from imposition (promotion) has to occur simultaneously - it's a pickle, no question. But as a principle, education should support people in their particular cultural expressions, but not in such as way that any particular culture or religion is favored or promoted. It would be easier if somehow all the religion could be left out - but I contend that it can't be done without lobotomizing the liberal arts and handcuffing particular artists-in-training.

 

This is as clear as I've been able to formulate how I feel in the topic - I've posted it not to state absolute truth, but for comment and correction only.

 

nat whilk ii

 

I'm 100% for the objective study of religions and their history. Obviously, as the generating source of so much suffering, hardship, cruelty, subjugation, enslavement, murder, rape, and war, religion and superstition have played an enormous part in human history and are inseparable from its proper study.

 

But the public expression of religious sentiments has no place in a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-supported endeavor. Such expression is often, by its very nature oppressive and coercive.

 

 

 

By the way, this topic is not just an intellectual exercise to me -- I was subjected to forced religious indoctrination for two years in public elementary school in Santa Ana, California, in the early 1960s.*

 

Since the 'Released Time Christian Education' program (an obvious end-run around the Establishment Clause later found to be unconstitutional) was actually held in the Sunday school rooms of my own church -- although it was completely separate and the church didn't endorse it or provide the teacher -- at first I thought, what the heck.

 

But I attended adult services at my church. The 'church ladies' had tried to shunt me into Sunday school at first -- and I attended twice, but it struck me as childishly stupid, felt cutouts of nonsense like burning bushes and flying chariots. For real. In adult services we talked about God and Man, about ethics, about love, about values. In Sunday school it was the most childish nonsense imaginable. (And a serious disservice to anyone actually serious about the religion, since it was ludicrously redacted and oversimplified and typically missed the 'real lessons' of the Bible stories they were supposedly illuminating.) So I went back to adult services where I listened attently and thought about the sermons. I still admire that pastor.

 

 

Unfortunately, RTCE was nothing like adult services in my church's own services, but much more like the insulting, infantile Sunday school I was a refugee from.

 

I pushed to be exempted, along with the one Jewish kid in class. We got our exemptions -- sort of. But then the school district started insisting that they had no place for us. They finally put us in the nurse's office and the nurse was clearly determined to make our stay there as absolutely unpleasant as possible. We had to sit in straight back chairs, not talk, and we couldn't read.

 

I lasted two weeks. The Jewish kid lasted another week or two.

 

But, soon enough, there we were, watching some 'church lady' type pushing felt cutouts of camels and burning bushes around a felt board tillt up.

 

So, you know, this IS personal to me.

 

I've seen what happens when the entanglement of church and government is allowed to corrupt and distort the educational and governmental process.

 

So, yeah, you apologists for commingling of religion and government are on the fighting side of me.

 

 

 

 

 

*The district was otherwise a generally smart, educationally progressive district, unlike the district I moved into in the late 1960s, which was, in deed, a shabby joke, educationally.) It must be remembered that, in those days, OC was hardcore John Birch Society Territory -- and, in fact, the supposedly 'libertarian' group, Young Americans for Freedom, was trying to recruit me in 7th grade. I was into it -- my family was Republican back to the time of Lincoln -- but my dad discouraged it. I insisted that it was my right under the rules of our family (as I saw them) to take my own political positions. My dad sat me down and had a long, long talk with me about how sometimes people pretend to be one thing (libertarian, for instance) but in reality may actually be another (anti-semitic neofascists). He talked about fighting the Nazis in WWII, about the death camps, about our closest family friends who were Jewish... and when I insisted he was wrong, I was shocked that he put his foot down. Years later, I did some research and, whaddya know? My old man was right. Again.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I'm not going to go on about the details of the case in point - I remain unconvinced that the band playing the melody of a hymn is enough of a religious statement to constitute a promotion or favoring of religion.

 

 

So where do you think that line should be drawn then. When do you think it becomes a promotion or favoring? If the kids are asked to sing the lyrics? If it's 2 songs? 3 songs? A certain number of specific references to Jesus?

 

That's the problem. How can you say when "promotion" or even "indoctrination" begins? Personally, I'd rather not be using MY taxpayer dollars and MY kid's schooltime to find out the answer to this little experiment.

 

I'd still kinda like to know what business the teacher had putting How Great Thou Art into a marching band program anyway. Again---this isn't like somebody complaining about playing a Souza march that's been played by a million marching bands over the years was found out to have some sort of religious connotation. It's How Great Thou Art. What the hell does that song have to do with marching band?

 

True. No kid is likely to become "indoctrinated" over this. But the point is that we shouldn't even be worrying about it. You're right. It's a petty conversation to be having. Take the song out and be done with it.

 

And, on another point----I always find it odd in these sorts of discussions that many of those who seem to be so concerned with government intrusion into people's personal lives and freedoms seem to be just find with it as long as it is something like public (government run) schools compelling kids to play/sing Christian music.

 

Please. Not with MY money. No.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

And for the record, I'm not some big anti-religion zealot. I was raised in the Methodist church, and was the church organist when I was teenager. I've played "How Great Thou Art" I don't know how many times. My grandmother formed the first choir in that church and my mother sang solos --- including that song --- regularly. I have since decided I'm not a Christian for personal reasons, but I'm not at all offended by the music or religious expressions.

 

At the same time, my wife and I have decided that we want to raise our daughter as secularly as possible and want to her to reach her own conclusions about religion and faith when she's old enough to make those own decisions. I have no real issue with my Sunday School upbringing---but it IS all about indoctrination of kids before they are old enough to make their own decisions. Let's be clear about that. It's about making sure that, at the very least, kids default to "Christian" as a faith and any other later choice is a conscious deviance from that upbringing.

 

I think subjects such as spirituality and religion and faith are all rather adult. Not so much for kids, really.

 

We want to introduce our daughter to religion and spirituality in our time in our own way. School---especially in the early grades---is about learning the basics of math and science and language and social skills. I don't want her coming home asking me questions about Jesus and God that we aren't ready to introduce her to yet. It isn't the government's business --- and it sure as hell isn't the marching band teachers' business -- how we instruct our child regarding such issues.

 

The government and taxpayer dollars need to stay away from dealing with religion in anything more than an abstract study of the subject. 100%. No exceptions for marching bands and instrumentals.

 

 

[blue2blue]

 

 

So where do you think that line should be drawn then. When do you think it becomes a promotion or favoring? If the kids are asked to sing the lyrics? If it's 2 songs? 3 songs? A certain number of specific references to Jesus?

 

That's the problem. How can you say when "promotion" or even "indoctrination" begins? Personally, I'd rather not be using MY taxpayer dollars and MY kid's schooltime to find out the answer to this little experiment.

 

I'd still kinda like to know what business the teacher had putting How Great Thou Art into a marching band program anyway. Again---this isn't like somebody complaining about playing a Souza march that's been played by a million marching bands over the years was found out to have some sort of religious connotation. It's How Great Thou Art. What the hell does that song have to do with marching band?

 

True. No kid is likely to become "indoctrinated" over this. But the point is that we shouldn't even be worrying about it. You're right. It's a petty conversation to be having. Take the song out and be done with it.

 

And, on another point----I always find it odd in these sorts of discussions that many of those who seem to be so concerned with government intrusion into people's personal lives and freedoms seem to be just find with it as long as it is something like public (government run) schools compelling kids to play/sing Christian music.

 

Please. Not with MY money. No.

 

 

And how many people in Mississippi aren't going to recognize "How Great Thou Art" as a hymn?

 

I'm listening to a straight piano version now. Admittedly, I have sung this hymn at a family friend's funeral within the past several months, myself, so it's particularly fresh in my mind.

 

 

Something that Dendy failed to mention in his original article -- the Rankin County School District had such a long and egregious history of promoting Christianity it its public schools that in 2013 a federal court enjoined it from proselytizing Christianity -- such actions are only taken when there is an ongoing pattern and practice of continued abuses, and, indeed, the court order did not stop the district's efforts to promote Christianity, including allowing the handing out of Bibles to elementary school students and prayer at school events.

 

This news article lays out the events and background on the court's actions -- again, these actions were not taken by the court out of the blue -- but were the response of the court to legal complaints by citizens. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28...y-with-prayer/

 

A thorough read will show that the district leadership said it would continue to defy the courts. This is the same leadership which has been shaken by allegations of corruption by private, for-profit prison interests.

 

Failing public schools, for profit prisons.

 

Gee, I don't see any connection. =/