Girl Prohibited From Singing Religious Song

[CallousGiant]

Quote by: Starboy Fine with me. We can go back to celebrating the secular versions of those holidays. Winter and Summer Solstice and Spring and Fall Equinox. And we could created moving holidays for comets eclipses and visible novas. It is a great idea. The sky belongs to all gods and to no gods at all. Starboy

But even those have religious significance, so by political correctness they should be done away with too. But the problem is, its not possible to remove all these things from live, people will and do complain, and when one organisation or person feels the need to remove just one thing (in this case the song from the school) people will complain. It is very hard to do things without offending people, but I believe less people will be offended by the song than by the removal of it, and so it should be left as it was.

[tusaki]

Hah, the old Buddhist way of thinking: "The best action, is the action or inaction where the most amount of happiness is created, or the least amount destroyed".

Now, for the discussion of "what is happiness", we should create another thread

[CallousGiant]

Quote by: tusaki Hah, the old Buddhist way of thinking: "The best action, is the action or inaction where the most amount of happiness is created, or the least amount destroyed". Now, for the discussion of "what is happiness", we should create another thread

Yes... I know what I believe often doesn't work in principle, but they are still my beliefs, and I believe that people should act (but only if it is necessary to) to help the most amount of people or harm the least.

[Starboy]

Quote by: CallousGiant But even those have religious significance, so by political correctness they should be done away with too.

The motion of the earth only has scientific significance. It is the motion of the sun and everything else moving around the earth that has religious significance. There was that little thing with Galileo and the church that maybe you were not aware of that took the heavens away from the gods. But hey, if your bible says the earth is the center of the universe and you want to attribute magical significance to the seasons then have at it. But for those of us in the scientific age, we will know better.

But the problem is, its not possible to remove all these things from live, people will and do complain, and when one organisation or person feels the need to remove just one thing (in this case the song from the school) people will complain. It is very hard to do things without offending people, but I believe less people will be offended by the song than by the removal of it, and so it should be left as it was.

Or you could require that she sing a song where even fewer people would complain. Or you could tell Christians when they complain to just shut up, get up and leave, turn off the TV, not go to the movie, not get an abortion, not marry a gay, to not use medical science and then when we are offended we will do similar things. And in public places such as government offices, or public schools or the military where every one must go or serve we will not allow any observance of any religion to be there so that any Muslim or Jew or Christian or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever would not be offended by their own government that they must interact with. Gosh, just like is says in the Constitution.

Starboy

[CallousGiant]

Quote by: Starboy The motion of the earth only has scientific significance. It is the motion of the sun and everything else moving around the earth that has religious significance. There was that little thing with Galileo and the church that maybe you were not aware of that took the heavens away from the gods. But hey, if your bible says the earth is the center of the universe and you want to attribute magical significance to the seasons then have at it. But for those of us in the scientific age, we will know better. Starboy

Eh? Political correctness is all about removing things that offend people. The motion of the earth, the seasons, the sun and the moon have been worshipped by many religions and societies, there were pagans in europe, aztecs and mayans in south america. But if someone wants to believe in similar practises to do with these irreversable processes, and someone is offended, there is nothing we can do about it. People will always complain at something, not just christians, and it is the councils, governments and organisational bodies duties to try and fix it so as few a people as possible are offended. In this case less people will be offended by the song than by the removal of the song. I am certain of that, therefore it is a bad decision. In other situations the removal of something may be right. For example, if a child had decided to sing a song praising hitler, then the number complaining at the song would greatly outnumber the number complaining at its removal, and it would be fine to ban it. I just wish that people would look at the pros and cons of decisions before assuming that everyone shares their opinion. In this case I doubt the school put much thought into it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: CallousGiant Eh? Political correctness is all about removing things that offend people. The motion of the earth, the seasons, the sun and the moon have been worshipped by many religions and societies, there were pagans in europe, aztecs and mayans in south america. But if someone wants to believe in similar practises to do with these irreversable processes, and someone is offended, there is nothing we can do about it.

You would have a point if not observing the astronomical events made them go away. The astronomical events are observed by most all the major religions because their religion was used as the explanation for the event. All the same the event will happen no matter what. The government can still make winter solstice a secular holiday and you can still go to your church and pretend that is when Jesus was born. And all the rest can go to their mosk, temple, pyramid, volcano, cave, tree or whatever.

People will always complain at something, not just christians, and it is the councils, governments and organisational bodies duties to try and fix it so as few a people as possible are offended. In this case less people will be offended by the song than by the removal of the song. I am certain of that, therefore it is a bad decision. In other situations the removal of something may be right. For example, if a child had decided to sing a song praising hitler, then the number complaining at the song would greatly outnumber the number complaining at its removal, and it would be fine to ban it. I just wish that people would look at the pros and cons of decisions before assuming that everyone shares their opinion. In this case I doubt the school put much thought into it.

You have missed my point. This is not about people complaining. This is about the ability of Christians to get their complaints addressed but the complaints of others are ignored. Either address them all or ignore them all.

I think we have been over all this. You got anything new to add?

Starboy

[CallousGiant]

Quote by: Starboy You have missed my point. This is not about people complaining. This is about the ability of Christians to get their complaints addressed but the complaints of others are ignored. Either address them all or ignore them all. Starboy

Ok then, isn't that the governments problem then? The christians keep pushing because the government keeps giving. The fact that they adress the complaints of christians but not others is [mostly] their own choice, and perhaps the christians are abusing the way the government is willing to adhere to them and not others, but the only way that this can realistically be solved is by the government changing their methods, and not the christians. The government is there to sort out problems, therefore they should be the ones to change.

Anyway, it is getting late so I'm off now. Has been fun, if thats the right word . Most discussion websites have people who are completely biased and are unwilling to acknowledge other peoples arguments, but this sites seems good, so I'll keep using it. Seeya some other time.

[Starboy]

Quote by: CallousGiant Ok then, isn't that the governments problem then? The christians keep pushing because the government keeps giving. The fact that they adress the complaints of christians but not others is [mostly] their own choice, and perhaps the christians are abusing the way the government is willing to adhere to them and not others, but the only way that this can realistically be solved is by the government changing their methods, and not the christians. The government is there to sort out problems, therefore they should be the ones to change.

This is the problem of every American, but what is happening is that the Christians are trying to get everyone to believe that Christian values are American values and that liberty and freedom be damned. The core values of Christianity are those of a slave society from the Bronze Age. They have nothing to do with the ideas of the Enlightenment. Yet Christians have managed to get their followers to completely ignore or be completely ignorant of the actual values this country was founded on. In any case the government is us.

Intent of the Founders The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

We are the keepers of the republic but as long as we confuse the values of Christianity with the values of the Enlightenment we are screwed. Our form of government requires an informed and educated electorate. People who know the difference between shit and shinola. One of those enlightenment values is that religion and government should be separated. I am amazed that so many would even think twice about telling the girl that she needs to sing her song in a church and pick another song to sing to people in a government building.

Starboy

[Sonart]

I'm getting onto this thread a bit late, but ....

I think this is yet another example of reasonably well-intentioned people trying to come to grips with the interpretations of new policies. I'm sure we can all think of examples of students being expelled from school because of zero-tolerance weapons policies for having a nail file, or because of zero-tolerance drug policies for having a cold remedy.

Personally, no, I don't agree with the decision in this case. This was one student's personal choice, just as, as some here have pointed out, others may have chosen to sing about sex, drugs and rock & roll. The school was sponsoring a talent show, not the content of the songs. It would be no different for me if, say, a student stood before their class to read an assigned essay and it turned out to be "How I spent my summer vacation at a Bible study camp". It's that students choice and the school isn't advocating their position any more than if a student had read "How I spent my summer vacation volunteering for the ASPCA" or "with the Sea Cadets". That's their personal choice and no one's requiring others to do anything but display a talent or read an assignment.

However, since tinybear thinks this worthy of discussion, how about some other examples...

--"Lisa Herdahl of Ecru, Mississippi, finally decided that the daily reciting of prayers over the public address system in her children's public school was wrong. It was not merely because the prayers aligned with a specific church other than her own Lutheran church."--

(it seems the Herdahls were devout Lutherans, recently moved from Minnesota, and that Lutherans have very specific religious differences with Baptists - which the Baptist school prayers reflected)

--"She also recognized that this was a clear attempt by a government agency (the public school system) to establish a religion.

When Ms Herdahl protested, she was ignored. So she filed a lawsuit against the school system. Although firm in her Lutheran beliefs and a regular church-goer, she was branded a devil-worshipper. Because of her stand, she lost her job. Her children were harassed at school by both students and teachers. Her family was threatened with violence."--

(Death threats, to be specific)

--"This is the result of attempting to create religious uniformity through school prayers. Is this the kind of community in which we want to live, where individuals of differing religious beliefs are unwelcome?"--

She sued the local school board and won. Or how about an example related to other threads on which tinybear has participated...

--" Jamie Nabozny is a gay youth who realized his sexual orientation when he was in the 7th grade."--

(let's see... 7th grade. About the age of puberty)

--"In 1996, at age 21, he sued his school district in Ashland, WI. He had survived years of taunts and threats from homophobic students. The school administrators gave essentially no support. They told him and his parents that he had to learn to expect abuse because he is gay. The situation predictably degenerated into violence. He was forced to take part in a simulated rape; he was urinated upon; he was kicked so many times that he had to undergo abdominal surgery."--

(You think that might be an opportunity to "CHOOSE" not to be gay, ya think?)

--"Rather than tackle the underlying problem of homophobia in the schools, the administration tried to isolate him from his fellow students. They placed him in a special-ed class; they made him travel to school on a bus with elementary school students so that his contemporaries could not attack him. Nabozny said: "Instead of teaching the value of respect for others, the school taught that if you are different you are the problem, and you are the one that has to be separated out and hidden." Part way through his eleventh year, he quit high school. His guidance counselor is quoted as saying: "I've tried to help you through this whole thing and nobody's willing to do anything." He later obtained his GED.

He won the lawsuit. Jurors agreed that 3 school officials "intentionally discriminated" against Nabozny and failed in their responsibility to protect him. By doing so, they violated his constitutional guarantee of equal protection. He won a $900,000 settlement. This is believed to be the first case in the US where school administrators were held liable for failing to deal constructively with anti-gay hatred."--

Whaddaya think, tinybear?


.

[moustache]

Wasnt this great country of America founded on religious freedom...thats why the pilgrims came to the U.S....to voice their religious views without being stopped...Is the act of banning this girl from singing Anti-American?

[Starboy]

Quote by: moustache Wasnt this great country of America founded on religious freedom...thats why the pilgrims came to the U.S....to voice their religious views without being stopped...Is the act of banning this girl from singing Anti-American?

They are certainly free to do so. Look around you. Are there not enough churches where they do just that? What they are not free to do, what a person of any religion is not free to do is to get the government to pay for it. And they are not free to get the government to promote their religion or any other religion for that matter.

Starboy

[Sonart]

Quote by: Starboy They are certainly free to do so. Look around you. Are there not enough churches where they do just that? What they are not free to do, what a person of any religion is not free to do is to get the government to pay for it.

The school was not paying for religion, Starboy, it was paying for a show of talent. If one person's particular talent involved singing about something significant to her, so what? That's her individual choice. The students were in that auditorium to see talent. Whether it's rap, rock, jazz, country, blues, trance, gospel or praise, they're all legitimate artforms, just as long as it's the student's choice, not the school's.

Now if the school had compelled the students to attend "An Evening of Praise Music", that might be another story, but it didn't.

.

[Starboy]

As I have said before, if it were not a time when Christian were indeed trying to force their religious values on everyone else through the government then I would have no problem with it but these are not nice times. Religion in the US is not playing nice.

Starboy

[G. Adams]

Erm, Starboy, it's not like the school is forcing all the kids to sing hymns. That I could see as objectionable to some (although not personally, I did it day after day and turned out as a fine pagan). So some little girl wants to sing a song that happened to be about God, theres no harm in it. If she wanted to sing Marylin Manson's Gun's, God and Government theres no harm in it. Yes, you'd have a few parents up in arms about it, but it should be permitted, just as the Christian songs should be allowed.

Just because some people are asses doesn't mean the rest of us should lower ourselves to their level.

[Starboy]

Quote by: G. Adams Just because some people are asses doesn't mean the rest of us should lower ourselves to their level.

If only it were just a matter of people making asses of themselves.

Starboy

[tinybear]

Quote by: Sonart I'm getting onto this thread a bit late, but .... I think this is yet another example of reasonably well-intentioned people trying to come to grips with the interpretations of new policies. I'm sure we can all think of examples of students being expelled from school because of zero-tolerance weapons policies for having a nail file, or because of zero-tolerance drug policies for having a cold remedy. Personally, no, I don't agree with the decision in this case. This was one student's personal choice, just as, as some here have pointed out, others may have chosen to sing about sex, drugs and rock & roll. The school was sponsoring a talent show, not the content of the songs. It would be no different for me if, say, a student stood before their class to read an assigned essay and it turned out to be "How I spent my summer vacation at a Bible study camp". It's that students choice and the school isn't advocating their position any more than if a student had read "How I spent my summer vacation volunteering for the ASPCA" or "with the Sea Cadets". That's their personal choice and no one's requiring others to do anything but display a talent or read an assignment. However, since tinybear thinks this worthy of discussion, how about some other examples... --"Lisa Herdahl of Ecru, Mississippi, finally decided that the daily reciting of prayers over the public address system in her children's public school was wrong. It was not merely because the prayers aligned with a specific church other than her own Lutheran church."-- (it seems the Herdahls were devout Lutherans, recently moved from Minnesota, and that Lutherans have very specific religious differences with Baptists - which the Baptist school prayers reflected) --"She also recognized that this was a clear attempt by a government agency (the public school system) to establish a religion. When Ms Herdahl protested, she was ignored. So she filed a lawsuit against the school system. Although firm in her Lutheran beliefs and a regular church-goer, she was branded a devil-worshipper. Because of her stand, she lost her job. Her children were harassed at school by both students and teachers. Her family was threatened with violence."-- (Death threats, to be specific) --"This is the result of attempting to create religious uniformity through school prayers. Is this the kind of community in which we want to live, where individuals of differing religious beliefs are unwelcome?"-- She sued the local school board and won. Or how about an example related to other threads on which tinybear has participated... --" Jamie Nabozny is a gay youth who realized his sexual orientation when he was in the 7th grade."-- (let's see... 7th grade. About the age of puberty) --"In 1996, at age 21, he sued his school district in Ashland, WI. He had survived years of taunts and threats from homophobic students. The school administrators gave essentially no support. They told him and his parents that he had to learn to expect abuse because he is gay. The situation predictably degenerated into violence. He was forced to take part in a simulated rape; he was urinated upon; he was kicked so many times that he had to undergo abdominal surgery."-- (You think that might be an opportunity to "CHOOSE" not to be gay, ya think?) --"Rather than tackle the underlying problem of homophobia in the schools, the administration tried to isolate him from his fellow students. They placed him in a special-ed class; they made him travel to school on a bus with elementary school students so that his contemporaries could not attack him. Nabozny said: "Instead of teaching the value of respect for others, the school taught that if you are different you are the problem, and you are the one that has to be separated out and hidden." Part way through his eleventh year, he quit high school. His guidance counselor is quoted as saying: "I've tried to help you through this whole thing and nobody's willing to do anything." He later obtained his GED. He won the lawsuit. Jurors agreed that 3 school officials "intentionally discriminated" against Nabozny and failed in their responsibility to protect him. By doing so, they violated his constitutional guarantee of equal protection. He won a $900,000 settlement. This is believed to be the first case in the US where school administrators were held liable for failing to deal constructively with anti-gay hatred."-- Whaddaya think, tinybear? .

I think it's great. People shouldn't be harrassed just because of legitimate beliefs and sexual orientation. The only regret is that the school authoritites failed to recognize this and ended up in court. Too little is being done in school about bullies. I personally have zero tolerance towards these people. Anyone who tries to push me around will regret it, as they did when I was in school. No one dared to. Ha. :)

[Sonart]

Quote by: Starboy As I have said before, if it were not a time when Christian were indeed trying to force their religious values on everyone else through the government then I would have no problem with it but these are not nice times. Religion in the US is not playing nice.

So what? That's their problem. This is not about getting even, Starboy, it's about getting it right and fair. Right now Christians feel threatened, and your attitude justifies that. I don't want to be a threat to Christians, I just want them to understand that their smug sense of dominance built on intolerance is wrong and not what America is supposed to be about.

But I want to be the Gandhi in the fight against oppression, not the bomb-throwing Hamas.

Quote by: Starboy If only it were just a matter of people making asses of themselves.

Then let 'them' make asses of themselves, not us. People are smart enough to figure it out eventually. But if we fight intolerance with more intolerance, no one wins, because we're simply providing them with amunition to fight us with.

Quote by: tinybear I think it's great. People shouldn't be harrassed just because of legitimate beliefs and sexual orientation.

Good. The problem is, when folks continue to insist that certain religious values should dominate or that gays are immoral perverts, they continue to justify harrassment. After all, if heretics are going to hell anyway, and gays are disgusting perversions, and all of them are threats to our values, why would it be wrong to attack them? I'm sure the students in my two examples thought themselves morally justified in their actions, based on traditions of intolerance to such diversity ingrained in them since childhood. Just as I'm sure many otherwise good and fair southern whites did before the civil rights movement, believing their learned values that colored people were inferior and therefore unjustified and a threat by seeking to rise above their natural place as second class citizens.

.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If the religious nuts think they have a right to censor material they deem inappropriate and offensive then in all fairness they should understand that others may deem their religious views, prayers and song as being just as inappropriate and offensive. Starboy

There's a difference: the Constitution prohibits laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. There is nothing in the Constitution that creates an absolute ban on censorship.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: caspian88 Now, I feel that religion should be kept entirely out of the state, and that the First Amendment isn't worded strongly enough, but that's what it says.

That's why there's an amendment process provided for in the Constitution.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Starboy Look if it is no big deal then why can't the girl just sing a different song? Starboy

Have you considered that maybe singing a secular song would be contrary to her faith?