PDA

View Full Version : court bans religious music at graduation!



jf1
09-09-2009, 03:48 AM
upholds schools banishment of "ave maria".

"the case was brought by a a graduating senior and alto saxophone player, who accused the superintendent of censoring her musical expression and acting with hostility toward religion."

christians mourn as "kumbayah" falls from the highschool playlist forever!
:D


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/08/BAVK19K5EK.DTL

LordDarwin
09-09-2009, 03:51 AM
gjdm http://assets.bodybuilding.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Weightaholic
09-09-2009, 03:52 AM
Because hearing Ave Maria brainwashes people into religion?

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the 40% of adult Americans who don't believe in evolution?

LordDarwin
09-09-2009, 03:55 AM
Because hearing Ave Maria brainwashes people into religion?

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the 40% of adult Americans who don't believe in evolution?
This court ruling is actually helping change that.


Did you know that if you play ave maria backwards at half-speed it says "evolution is not real, atheists are the devil"

jf1
09-09-2009, 04:08 AM
This court ruling is actually helping change that.


Did you know that if you play ave maria backwards at half-speed it says "evolution is not real, atheists are the devil"

some people hear that message played forward, at regular speed...

user5145
09-09-2009, 04:14 AM
I'm as militant as the next atheist, but I don't see the need to ban a beautiful work of classical music from a school just because the song has religious content. If the school was imposing some sort of belief based on the song, then maybe.

jf1
09-09-2009, 04:22 AM
I'm as militant as the next atheist, but I don't see the need to ban a beautiful work of classical music from a school just because the song has religious content. If the school was imposing some sort of belief based on the song, then maybe.

there are plenty of beautiful secular classical works.
start playing 'ave maria', next thing you know, there will be a sing-along of
"hes got the whole world in his hands"...
:rolleyes:

reyalp
09-09-2009, 05:03 AM
Ave Maria is a beautiful piece of music. Not sure why anybody is so worked up against it. It's not like today's kids learn Latin anyway!


btw, when exactly did they quit teaching Latin in elementary school?

jf1
09-09-2009, 05:07 AM
Ave Maria is a beautiful piece of music. Not sure why anybody is so worked up against it.

i answered this exact response in post #7.
thanks

reyalp
09-09-2009, 05:17 AM
i answered this exact response in post #7.
thanks

and Ave Maria is also a beautiful piece of music. i said this in post #8.
thanks

08HbCG8QbVo

jf1
09-09-2009, 05:26 AM
and Ave Maria is also a beautiful piece of music. i said this in post #8.
thanks


sing along with 'reyalp'!
keep dem hands aclappin'!
sing it for jeeeeesus!

"hes got the whole world in his hands..."
(sung loudly with much joy and resounding emphasis)
:rolleyes:

reyalp
09-09-2009, 05:40 AM
sing along with 'reyalp'!
keep dem hands aclappin'!
sing it for jeeeeesus!

"hes got the whole world in his hands..."
(sung loudly with much joy and resounding emphasis)
:rolleyes:
Yes, you are indeed acting like you are 5 years old.

ksheab
09-09-2009, 05:43 AM
another day in the life of secular humanists

IraHays
09-09-2009, 06:22 AM
stupid. Especially since it was an instrumental. Beautiful song.

ONtop888
09-09-2009, 06:24 AM
another day in the life of secular humanists

lulz this

jf1
09-09-2009, 06:52 AM
stupid. Especially since it was an instrumental. Beautiful song.

really?
cant you see where this is leading?

"hes got da lil tiny baby, in his hands..."

there is soooo much beautiful music without religious connotation.
we simply dont need the 'ave marias' to hear beautiful music!

maybe you can get you church band to strike it up this sunday, if you really feel the need to bask in its beauty...
:D

Blindead
09-09-2009, 06:58 AM
Meh. Although when I was in chorus we sang at least one song praising God every single concert. That did used to bother the hell out of me, even when I was a Christian. Serious. Back when I was religious I thought the way there was a blatant bias towards my religion open in places it shouldn't even be mentioned really annoying.

IraHays
09-09-2009, 07:04 AM
really?
cant you see where this is leading?

"hes got da lil tiny baby, in his hands..."

there is soooo much beautiful music without religious connotation.
we simply dont need the 'ave marias' to hear beautiful music!

maybe you can get you church band to strike it up this sunday, if you really feel the need to bask in its beauty...
:D

My hate just doesn't run as deep as yours. Strong slippery slope.

No lyrics = no problem.

I can't see the harm with exposing kids to great music. I guess each can judge this "evil" for themselves...

2uYrmYXsujI

jf1
09-09-2009, 07:11 AM
i will never forget the folk band strumming and singing (with much feeling)
"hey jude"
in catholic mass!

one of the highlights of my failed religious indoctrination.

"the minute you let it under your skin, then you begin, to make it better..."

as if the beatles were singing about god here!
:rolleyes:

IraHays
09-09-2009, 07:13 AM
i will never forget the folk band strumming and singing (with much feeling)
"hey jude"
in catholic mass!


Serious? If so, lmao.

Almost as good as Bush Sr. using "Keep on Rocking in the Free World" as his campaign song.

Blindead
09-09-2009, 07:14 AM
jackfast have you been blowing coke for the past few days or something

jf1
09-09-2009, 07:16 AM
Serious? If so, lmao.

Almost as good as Bush Sr. using "Keep on Rocking in the Free World" as his campaign song.
dead serious!

jackfast have you been blowing coke for the past few days or something
LOL!
no, but i ran 81/2 miles yesterday...still got me dat 'runners high'!

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 07:27 AM
Yes it is a beautiful piece of music*, and I don't think it should be banned due solely to its religious context but also because it was to be played on a saxaphone. Music lovers all over the world are sleeping a little better for this decision.

*Actually the version by Bach/Gounod is the one most people know and love. I've never heard the Biebl version.

IraHays
09-09-2009, 07:28 AM
Yes it is a beautiful piece of music, and I don't think it should be banned due solely to its religious context but also because it was to be played on a saxaphone. Music lovers all over the world are sleeping a little better for this decision.

lmao.

AKR
09-09-2009, 07:29 AM
Because hearing Ave Maria brainwashes people into religion?

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the 40% of adult Americans who don't believe in evolution?


It's all or nothing. Separation is separation and we can't just go on a case by case basis with religious music. Maybe that song is ok to you, but what about "Onward Christian Soldiers?" What about other religious songs? I see no place for them in the public school system, especially in a graduation ceremony, where it's about the entire class.

reyalp
09-09-2009, 07:30 AM
It's all or nothing. Separation is separation and we can't just go on a case by case basis with religious music. Maybe that song is ok to you, but what about "Onward Christian Soldiers?" What about other religious songs? I see no place for them in the public school system.
man, this slope sure is slippery

mchomertime
09-09-2009, 07:33 AM
Yes it is a beautiful piece of music, and I don't think it should be banned due solely to its religious context but also because it was to be played on a saxaphone. Music lovers all over the world are sleeping a little better for this decision.

I think everyone can agree on this

bird72
09-09-2009, 07:43 AM
Ave Maria is a beautiful piece of music. Not sure why anybody is so worked up against it. It's not like today's kids learn Latin anyway!


btw, when exactly did they quit teaching Latin in elementary school?


I'm as militant as the next atheist, but I don't see the need to ban a beautiful work of classical music from a school just because the song has religious content. If the school was imposing some sort of belief based on the song, then maybe.

Guy's, be sorry for Jackie"o", he is an illiterate backyard lifter, who already have the Vinni Vanilli, cassette in his walk-man.:D

http://www.papermag.com/blogs/0331091733_M_Milli_Vanilli_450.jpg

Jackie who are you, the left or the right.:D

bird72
09-09-2009, 07:44 AM
separation is separation

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

ksheab
09-09-2009, 07:49 AM
It's all or nothing. Separation is separation and we can't just go on a case by case basis with religious music. Maybe that song is ok to you, but what about "Onward Christian Soldiers?" What about other religious songs? I see no place for them in the public school system, especially in a graduation ceremony, where it's about the entire class.

exactly, what do you mean by 'separation' because as everyone should know there is no such things as 'the separation of church and state" in our constitution?

JAGERBOY
09-09-2009, 07:51 AM
To me this is just like getting God off our money. I'm not gonna be out in the streets protesting it, but if it happens, I'm all about it.

Blindead
09-09-2009, 07:52 AM
exactly, what do you mean by 'separation' because as everyone should know there is no such things as 'the separation of church and state" in our constitution?

Actually there is genius, it's in the establishment clause of the first amendment and has been there since the 1800's.

AKR
09-09-2009, 07:56 AM
man, this slope sure is slippery


There's nothing slippery about it. No religious music should be allowed whatsoever, regardless if it doesn't go any further. Again, separation is separation.


exactly, what do you mean by 'separation' because as everyone should know there is no such things as 'the separation of church and state" in our constitution?

O'rly?


http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm



The "Wall of Separation" concept:

Shortly after Thomas Jefferson was elected president, some Baptists from Connecticut asked that he declare a national day of fasting in order to help the country recover from a bitterly fought presidential campaign. He disagreed, feeling that the Federal government should not recognize a day set aside for religious reasons. In his reply of 1802-JAN-1, he stated:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."


Whether you want to play word games and say that the constitution doesn't really say "separation," it is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade reading level and an honest mind that it means exactly that.

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 08:01 AM
It's all or nothing. Separation is separation and we can't just go on a case by case basis with religious music. Maybe that song is ok to you, but what about "Onward Christian Soldiers?" What about other religious songs? I see no place for them in the public school system, especially in a graduation ceremony, where it's about the entire class.

Take it off our money, our pledge of allegiance, our government buildings, our constitution, our public libraries. Why don't we just forget our entire past? Is that separation enough for you?

I am all for not pushing religious idealogies on people, but come on. You atheists are a little ridiculous.

JAGERBOY
09-09-2009, 08:02 AM
Take it off our money, our pledge of allegiance, our government buildings, our constitution, our public libraries. Why don't we just forget our entire past? Is that separation enough for you?

I am all for not pushing religious idealogies on people, but come on. You atheists are a little ridiculous.

Yes to all of the above.

bird72
09-09-2009, 08:06 AM
Yes to all of the above.

No to your yes.

ksheab
09-09-2009, 08:09 AM
Actually there is genius, it's in the establishment clause of the first amendment and has been there since the 1800's.

really? id like you to post it, since, i cant seem to find it.

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 08:11 AM
Yes to all of the above.


so you argue that public libraries should not contain texts that have religious idealogy in them? You are to close minded. Just because these individuals who wrote fascinating texts believed in a "god" they have somehow lost their right to having been brilliant minds? Some of the greatest thinkers of our times had strong religious backgrounds, do they somehow lose all credibility?

JAGERBOY
09-09-2009, 08:12 AM
so you argue that public libraries should not contain texts that have religious idealogy in them? You are to close minded. Just because these individuals who wrote fascinating texts believed in a "god" they have somehow lost their right to having been brilliant minds? Some of the greatest thinkers of our times had strong religious backgrounds, do they somehow lose all credibility?

I didn't say that. I thought you were saying mentioning god on Library buildings like they do on some Government buildings etc. I don't care if there are religious texts in a library.

ksheab
09-09-2009, 08:16 AM
the intent of the free exercise and establishment clause is to not allow the government to interfere with one's religious practice or to force a state religion upon the people.

its been perverted beyond recognition.

AKR
09-09-2009, 08:17 AM
Take it off our money, our pledge of allegiance, our government buildings, our constitution, our public libraries. Why don't we just forget our entire past? Is that separation enough for you?


Well, yeah, since that shiit never belonged their the first place.



I am all for not pushing religious idealogies on people, but come on. You atheists are a little ridiculous.


So, if our money said "In Satan We Trust," you'd be for keeping it on their because it's part of our history? And how is it forgetting our past? Slavery was in our past. Should we leave up signs that say "whites only?"


I didn't say that. I thought you were saying mentioning god on Library buildings like they do on some Government buildings etc. I don't care if there are religious texts in a library.


This is how I took it as well.

AKR
09-09-2009, 08:18 AM
the intent of the free exercise and establishment clause is to not allow the government to interfere with one's religious practice or to force a state religion upon the people.

its been perverted beyond recognition.


Ok, so was this a class full of Christians, or how is it not forcing religion upon people to have a religious song at their graduation when they aren't Christian?

ksheab
09-09-2009, 08:19 AM
if the government were to own, say, just about everything, then, according to many viewpoints on this thread, wouldnt it necessarily mean the removal of religion from, say, just about everything?

IraHays
09-09-2009, 08:28 AM
Ok, so was this a class full of Christians, or how is it not forcing religion upon people to have a religious song at their graduation when they aren't Christian?

There were no lyrics. To me that is a big difference.

Hell, most Christians wouldn't even recognize that song. Catholics seem pretty unique in praying/praising Mary.

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 08:29 AM
Ok, so was this a class full of Christians, or how is it not forcing religion upon people to have a religious song at their graduation when they aren't Christian?

because the song has moved past religion and is considered a work of art. Should we not teach our children about great thinkers such as Descartes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Newton because they mention God in some of their literature? Does that somehow lessen the art and knowledge they have produced?

AKR
09-09-2009, 08:49 AM
if the government were to own, say, just about everything, then, according to many viewpoints on this thread, wouldnt it necessarily mean the removal of religion from, say, just about everything?


I asked you questions. Please answer them:


So, if our money said "In Satan We Trust," you'd be for keeping it on their because it's part of our history? And how is it forgetting our past? Slavery was in our past. Should we leave up signs that say "whites only?"



There were no lyrics. To me that is a big difference.

Hell, most Christians wouldn't even recognize that song. Catholics seem pretty unique in praying/praising Mary.

It is a religious song, nonetheless, and it is showing a preference for Christianity.

Blindead
09-09-2009, 08:53 AM
because the song has moved past religion and is considered a work of art. Should we not teach our children about great thinkers such as Descartes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Newton because they mention God in some of their literature? Does that somehow lessen the art and knowledge they have produced?

Yeah...seriously. I was just reading about a lot of natural philosophers, and the religion thing didn't bother me at all.

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 08:57 AM
I asked you questions. Please answer them:






It is a religious song, nonetheless, and it is showing a preference for Christianity.

You could argue that about anything. I could argue they were also showing a preference towards white people as it was a white composer that composed the music.......Why did they not play a Miles Davis song? How about we find a small clip of music from every culture/heritage in the world and put it together for the graduation song so everyone is happy? Sound good?

jf1
09-09-2009, 08:57 AM
so you argue that public libraries should not contain texts that have religious idealogy in them?

as long as they are filed under 'fiction' i have no problem with that...

IraHays
09-09-2009, 08:59 AM
It is a religious song, nonetheless, and it is showing a preference for Christianity.

Pretty big reach imo.

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 08:59 AM
as long as they are filed under 'fiction' i have no problem with that...

yeah I guess we should put the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and Descartes as "fiction".

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 09:08 AM
exactly, what do you mean by 'separation' because as everyone should know there is no such things as 'the separation of church and state" in our constitution?

However the intent of the Non-Establishment Clause is clear. The only way to have religious freedom in this country is by not having endorsement of any religion by government. Having this separation between church and state protects both. You start letting them sing Catholic songs like this, then the Protestants will want to have their music. Then you got the Jews and Muslims. Next thing you know, every wacky little religion is going to want their voices heard too. Where do you draw the line?

There's only one place that makes sense.

AKR
09-09-2009, 09:14 AM
Pretty big reach imo.



I don't see how. It's a religious song. Simple enough. No reaching.




You could argue that about anything. I could argue they were also showing a preference towards white people as it was a white composer that composed the music.......Why did they not play a Miles Davis song? How about we find a small clip of music from every culture/heritage in the world and put it together for the graduation song so everyone is happy? Sound good?


Answer my questions. You won't because you're only arguing your angle because it's Christianity. If it were Satanism or slavery, you'd think that argument was stupid.

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 09:20 AM
I don't see how. It's a religious song. Simple enough. No reaching.






Answer my questions. You won't because you're only arguing your angle because it's Christianity. If it were Satanism or slavery, you'd think that argument was stupid.

I could care less what it is. Are those really logical arguments? Really; in Satan we trust? How far do you think a country that believed in anarchy would get? We do recognize slavery and the problems it caused.

In God we trust implies just about every damn religion known to man, just change the terminology....I don't think it pushes any agenda.

bird72
09-09-2009, 09:24 AM
Ok, so was this a class full of Christians, or how is it not forcing religion upon people to have a religious song at their graduation when they aren't Christian?

not forcing nothing, he is a student also......

Melkor
09-09-2009, 09:27 AM
Because hearing Ave Maria brainwashes people into religion?

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the 40% of adult Americans who don't believe in evolution?

Good post.

That's sad to me actually. Some of the greatest pieces of music ever written have "religious" names or overtones, and that means that nothing like that piece can be played at these types of ceremonies. Without any discussion of religion at all, the loss of those pieces of music is a real disappointment.

I really don't understand why people care about things like Ave Maria being played at a graduation ceremony. Are they worried that they are going to be brainwashed into believing in religion by hearing it?

Isn't this a little hypocritical for people who were freaking out about parents keeping their kids home from Obama's speech?

bird72
09-09-2009, 09:30 AM
[QUOTE=Melkor;382651941I really don't understand why people care about things like Ave Maria being played at a graduation ceremony. Are they worried that they are going to be brainwashed into believing in religion by hearing it?

Isn't this a little hypocritical for people who were freaking out about parents keeping their kids home from Obama's speech?[/QUOTE]

x100

It's very ironic.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 09:41 AM
not forcing nothing, he is a student also......

It is forcing those who wish to graduate with their classmates to sit through Catholic dogma that they may not appreciate. Just as you take your faith very seriously, and would likely object to being forced to listen to something contrary to your beliefs, others do as well.

Funny how you expect to have your beliefs respected, yet refuse to do the same in kind.

JAGERBOY
09-09-2009, 09:47 AM
I could care less what it is. Are those really logical arguments? Really; in Satan we trust? How far do you think a country that believed in anarchy would get? .

Irrelevant.

AKR
09-09-2009, 09:50 AM
I could care less what it is. Are those really logical arguments? Really; in Satan we trust? How far do you think a country that believed in anarchy would get?


You just destroyed your argument. You said we should keep those things because they are part of our history, but you only think that for Christianity. Were it another religion or something you dislike you would say otherwise, as you have just demonstrated. Get a new argument as you don't even believe your own.




In God we trust implies just about every damn religion known to man, just change the terminology....I don't think it pushes any agenda.


A) That's a lie. It was created by Christians.

B) It's pushing the agenda of religion.

C) It's unconstitutional.


Edit:


We do recognize slavery and the problems it caused.

Uh, yeah, we recognize slavery AS A PROBLEM. That is different than keeping up racist signs and singing racist songs.

Penile_Dementia
09-09-2009, 09:50 AM
Ave Maria ftw

Creationism ftl

reyalp
09-09-2009, 09:50 AM
It is forcing those who wish to graduate with their classmates to sit through Catholic dogma that they may not appreciate. Just as you take your faith very seriously, and would likely object to being forced to listen to something contrary to your beliefs, others do as well.

Funny how you expect to have your beliefs respected, yet refuse to do the same in kind.

saxophone = dogma

got it

Forge3
09-09-2009, 09:51 AM
I suppose if I was a staunch atheist, let alone an embittered one I wouln't want to sit through Christian religious songs let alone those of other faiths. I definitely would not sing along or clap my hands lol because I would feel like a hypocrite.

AKR
09-09-2009, 09:53 AM
Good post.

That's sad to me actually. Some of the greatest pieces of music ever written have "religious" names or overtones, and that means that nothing like that piece can be played at these types of ceremonies. Without any discussion of religion at all, the loss of those pieces of music is a real disappointment.

I really don't understand why people care about things like Ave Maria being played at a graduation ceremony. Are they worried that they are going to be brainwashed into believing in religion by hearing it?

Isn't this a little hypocritical for people who were freaking out about parents keeping their kids home from Obama's speech?


I wonder if you and others would be bothered by an anti-Christian song about how horrible your religion is. How about a song about hunting down Christians and hanging them for being Christian? Now, just take out the lyrics and it's all good, right?

bird72
09-09-2009, 10:22 AM
I wonder if you and others would be bothered by an anti-Christian song about how horrible your religion is. How about a song about hunting down Christians and hanging them for being Christian? Now, just take out the lyrics and it's all good, right?

Oh, because the Ave Maria, talk about killing and burning people...:rolleyes:




analogy is silly, silly is.....

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 10:34 AM
I wonder if you and others would be bothered by an anti-Christian song about how horrible your religion is. How about a song about hunting down Christians and hanging them for being Christian? Now, just take out the lyrics and it's all good, right?

look at the middle east and you will find plenty of it. I am not bothered by it at all, they have a right to their opinion.
Where do the notes from Ave Maria preach hatred, death, and hanging? Am I missing something here?

pantera02018
09-09-2009, 10:38 AM
hey man

i hate christianity and play with pentgrams like every otehr atheist:cool:

but thats kinda retarded its just music

AKR
09-09-2009, 10:39 AM
look at the middle east and you will find plenty of it. I am not bothered by it at all, they have a right to their opinion.
Where do the notes from Ave Maria preach hatred, death, and hanging? Am I missing something here?



You're not so hot with analogies.

Melkor
09-09-2009, 10:46 AM
I wonder if you and others would be bothered by an anti-Christian song about how horrible your religion is. How about a song about hunting down Christians and hanging them for being Christian? Now, just take out the lyrics and it's all good, right?

Of course, but there's a difference between a piece of music and a piece of music teaching hatred for a group of people. I'm not Catholic, and I don't see Maria (Mary) in the same light Catholics do, but I don't think that anything that disagrees with my exact world view needs to be banned either.

I understand your point, but I don't understand the application here.

bird72
09-09-2009, 10:50 AM
A fact to some people here.

The guy play the alto saxophone, so, is not possible to him, to say nothing religious, because he have the saxophone in his mouth..................:rolleyes:

NCK MIZ
09-09-2009, 10:52 AM
You're not so hot with analogies.


and I point you to philosophy 101: Introduction to Logic.

jf1
09-09-2009, 10:53 AM
A fact to some people here.

The guy play the alto saxophone, so, is not possible to him, to say nothing religious, because he have the saxophone in his mouth..................:rolleyes:

if only that was the situation with you...
:rolleyes:

Melkor
09-09-2009, 10:57 AM
How do those of you that support banning this piece from school reconcile that with the reaction you have to banning books from schools? Or the reaction you may have had about people keeping their kids home from Obama's speech? I'm curious how the playing of Ave Maria on the saxomaphone is in some way imposing anything on children in any different way than either of those other examples.

Forge3
09-09-2009, 10:57 AM
I don't see what the big deal is here! Faith and religion should be offered, with invitation, openess and welcome not forced onto people. Seems like common sense here. Maybe I am just not your run of the mill Christian if everyone else sees it differently.:confused:

bird72
09-09-2009, 10:59 AM
if only that was the situation with you...
:rolleyes:

I think you are not so sure about your religion...:)

IraHays
09-09-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't see what the big deal is here! Faith and religion should be offered, with invitation, openess and welcome not forced onto people. Seems like common sense here. Maybe I am just not your run of the mill Christian if everyone else sees it differently.:confused:

Do you agree with the ruling?

jf1
09-09-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't see what the big deal is here! Faith and religion should be offered, with invitation, openess and welcome not forced onto people. Seems like common sense here. Maybe I am just not your run of the mill Christian if everyone else sees it differently.:confused:

i always considered bird72 or hokie to be your 'run of the mill christians'...
:D

Forge3
09-09-2009, 11:05 AM
Do you agree with the ruling?

If it bans Christian music in a school that includes various faiths and atheist of course I do. I just don't understand why Christians think that this is evil or atheism winning. I think they should have more faith then to think this is a grave wound to the cause. We have lasted 2,000 years. Our focus should not be on imposing our dogma or liturgical music in schools or on money but rather internalizing the words of jesus and living the life he outlined for us. That is where we need more work and doing so will be a far greater leaven of change than any outward impositions on others. Again this is common sense to me.


i always considered bird72 or hokie to be your 'run of the mill christians'...
:D

Ok...

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:06 AM
I don't see what the big deal is here! Faith and religion should be offered, with invitation, openess and welcome not forced onto people. Seems like common sense here. Maybe I am just not your run of the mill Christian if everyone else sees it differently.:confused:

Play the alto saxophone the Ave Maria in a graduation is forcing it, he even can't sing the song, but the kid was forced to not execute his free speech by the court?

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:08 AM
If it bans Christian music in a school that includes various faiths and atheist of course I do. I just don't understand why Christians think that this is evil or atheism winning. I think they should have more faith then to think this is a grave wound to the cause. We have lasted 2,000 years.



Ok...

You are entitle to your opinion, so do i, and my opinion is that is a exaggeration and an atheist whining.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:09 AM
How do those of you that support banning this piece from school reconcile that with the reaction you have to banning books from schools? Or the reaction you may have had about people keeping their kids home from Obama's speech? I'm curious how the playing of Ave Maria on the saxomaphone is in some way imposing anything on children in any different way than either of those other examples.

Books in a library are one thing. Books as part of a curriculum are another. I don't think religious texts should be excluded from the former, or included in the latter.

Keeping kids home from school during something they disagree with, such as a presidential address, is always a parent's option.

Being forced to listen to a musical version of a Catholic prayer during a graduation ceremony is a different matter.

Forge3
09-09-2009, 11:10 AM
Play the alto saxophone the Ave Maria in a graduation is forcing it, he even can't sing the song, but the kid was forced to not execute his free speech by the court?

Ok this is different imo than the words. It is a beautiful historical song. More to think about.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:11 AM
You are entitle to your opinion, so do i, and my opinion is that is a exaggeration and an atheist whining.

I disagree. The administrator at the school omitted the song to avoid conflict with the Second Amendment. No atheist is whining about that. Only Christians.

Melkor
09-09-2009, 11:11 AM
Books in a library are one thing. Books as part of a curriculum are another. I don't think religious texts should be excluded from the former, or included in the latter.

Keeping kids home from school during something they disagree with, such as a presidential address, is always a parent's option.

Being forced to listen to a musical version of a Catholic prayer during a graduation ceremony is a different matter.

Why? Closing your ears to things you disagree with seems childish, political or religious or otherwise.

Especially considering it's just saxomaphone, not even the words (which were originally in Latin anyway, and no one would likely understand it in the first place).

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:13 AM
i always considered bird72 or hokie to be your 'run of the mill christians'...
:D

I, Barack Hussein Obama," began Roberts.

"I, Barack," said Obama, and before he could continue, Roberts said, "do solemnly swear."

Obama: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear"

Roberts: "That I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...

Obama: "that I will execute..."

Roberts: "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States..."

Obama: "The office of president of the United States faithfully..."

At that point, Roberts got back on course, leading as Obama followed with "and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"So help you God?" asked Roberts.

"So help me God."

You want to impeach Obama, for violate the separation clause?

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:18 AM
Ok this is different imo than the words. It is a beautiful historical song. More to think about.

FYI it is not the same song most people associate with "Ave Maria". This is the one by Biebl and based on the prayer "Hail Mary". The Gounod version that most of us know is the Ave Maria poem set to Bach's music, and yes it is one of the most beautiful pieces of music written. Had the performer chosen to play Bach's "The Well-Tempered Clavier", which is that version of "Ave Maria" without the lyrics, there could have been no objection.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:19 AM
Why? Closing your ears to things you disagree with seems childish, political or religious or otherwise.

Especially considering it's just saxomaphone, not even the words (which were originally in Latin anyway, and no one would likely understand it in the first place).

It's still proselytizing.

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:19 AM
Being forced to listen to a musical version of a Catholic prayer during a graduation ceremony is a different matter.

That's a fundamentalist atheism at exponential number.....


Being forced......prssssssssss

IraHays
09-09-2009, 11:23 AM
It's still proselytizing.


Playing Ave Maria by the school band is trying to convert students?????

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:24 AM
That song is beautiful and at this point falls more into secular music rather than religious. Especially if their is no vocal accompainment with it. That actually makes no sense at all. IT is not like they were singing blatant Christian hymns.

I'll repeat, this is probably not the song you think it is.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:26 AM
Playing Ave Maria by the school band is trying to convert students?????

Yes. No matter how small it seems. Religious zealots use the "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:29 AM
Playing Ave Maria by the school band is trying to convert students?????

Is so pathetic as this, Xmas..................:rolleyes:

If we condemn religious fanatics, we need to condemn atheist fanatics.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Who's "condemning"?

IraHays
09-09-2009, 11:33 AM
Yes. No matter how small it seems. Religious zealots use the "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

lul. Ok.

I think some of you guys need a thicker skin.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Don't need thicker skin. We got the Constitution.

reyalp
09-09-2009, 11:39 AM
Don't need thicker skin. We got the Constitution.
So do the Christians.

AKR
09-09-2009, 11:41 AM
and I point you to philosophy 101: Introduction to Logic.


If you took Philosophy 101, you should understand how illogical your argument is. I turned it around on you and you destroyed it yourself by admitting you don't believe in holding on to traditions just because they're part of our history. You then failed to understand that if a song with it's lyrics is offensive to you even without the lyrics, that it is no different than a religious song without the lyrics.



Of course, but there's a difference between a piece of music and a piece of music teaching hatred for a group of people. I'm not Catholic, and I don't see Maria (Mary) in the same light Catholics do, but I don't think that anything that disagrees with my exact world view needs to be banned either.

I understand your point, but I don't understand the application here.


Well, you wouldn't want to use a song that has lyrics you disapprove of even if the lyrics weren't in the song. I don't know how you can't relate that to the use of a song with religious lyrics being played without the lyrics. How is it different? The principle is exactly the same. A song is unacceptable even without it's lyrics because the original song has unacceptable lyrics.

Melkor
09-09-2009, 11:42 AM
The Constitution doesn't ban religion, it merely imposes a mandate on the State that it not choose a religion or enforce regulations against religions.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Where would that imply that schools can't have a saxomaphone player playing Ave Maria?

I mean, if you look at it deeply enough, schools shouldn't even be run by the government in the first place, but even ignoring that glaring bit of unconstitutionality, this kid playing a song in school doesn't violate the above quoted mandate.

Melkor
09-09-2009, 11:46 AM
Well, you wouldn't want to use a song that has lyrics you disapprove of even if the lyrics weren't in the song. I don't know how you can't relate that to the use of a song with religious lyrics being played without the lyrics. How is it different? The principle is exactly the same. A song is unacceptable even without it's lyrics because the original song has unacceptable lyrics.

Even if they played the song with lyrics intact, why should a person get any more upset about that than the school using Huckleberry Finn in their reading list, or having a President they disagree with politically broadcast a speech to their children? Why do people fear hearing a song (in Latin no less)? I don't understand how people get upset about stuff like this. It seems really immature to me. Also, as in my previous post, it's not in the Constitution, as much as people wish it was.

IraHays
09-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Don't need thicker skin. We got the Constitution.

I guess that's the point. I can't see how it violates the constitution at all.

To each their own. I certainly won't lose sleep over it.

BTW, the court did not "ban" it as the thread title suggest.

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:51 AM
If you took Philosophy 101, you should understand how illogical your argument is. I turned it around on you and you destroyed it yourself by admitting you don't believe in holding on to traditions just because they're part of our history. You then failed to understand that if a song with it's lyrics is offensive to you even without the lyrics, that it is no different than a religious song without the lyrics.





Well, you wouldn't want to use a song that has lyrics you disapprove of even if the lyrics weren't in the song. I don't know how you can't relate that to the use of a song with religious lyrics being played without the lyrics. How is it different? The principle is exactly the same. A song is unacceptable even without it's lyrics because the original song has unacceptable lyrics.

Now you are the censorship of the R/P...............

Atheist censorship, i never imagine that, only when Marx exist.......

bird72
09-09-2009, 11:55 AM
I guess that's the point. I can't see how it violates the constitution at all.

To each their own. I certainly won't lose sleep over it.

BTW, the court did not "ban" it as the thread title suggest.

I can't imagine a group of atheist, protesting, because the government provide funds for the exhibition of the David of Miguel Angel.

reyalp
09-09-2009, 11:57 AM
SDMG1 is right, this is Biebl's Ave Maria, not Schubert.

kHbVNJoHfnw

after listening to that, it started raining Bibles and crucifixes. I was terrified.
Everyone within a 100yd radius was immediately converted to Christianity.

EDIT, anyway, the ruling wasn't to bar specifically the playing of it, it was just that they didn't have enough time to play anything else to balance it out, as it were.

Non-issue IMO

AKR
09-09-2009, 12:07 PM
The Constitution doesn't ban religion, it merely imposes a mandate on the State that it not choose a religion or enforce regulations against religions.



Where would that imply that schools can't have a saxomaphone player playing Ave Maria?

I mean, if you look at it deeply enough, schools shouldn't even be run by the government in the first place, but even ignoring that glaring bit of unconstitutionality, this kid playing a song in school doesn't violate the above quoted mandate.



The intention is to keep the government from promoting any particular religion. When a government institution uses a Christian song, lyrics or not, it appears to promote Christianity. Just because the state isn't mandating a Bible in every home doesn't mean it isn't against the intent of the clause.

bird72
09-09-2009, 12:09 PM
The intention is to keep the government from promoting any particular religion. When a government institution uses a Christian song, lyrics or not, it appears to promote Christianity. Just because the state isn't mandating a Bible in every home doesn't mean it isn't against the intent of the clause.

This \/ \/ \/



I can't imagine a group of atheist, protesting, because the government provide funds for the exhibition of the David of Miguel Angel.

AKR
09-09-2009, 12:14 PM
I hope bird hasn't forgotten that I have him on ignore.

bird72
09-09-2009, 12:16 PM
I hope bird hasn't forgotten that I have him on ignore.

I hope AKR hasn't forgotten that, I DON'T CARE:D


PD.
Old excuse when AKR get owned:)

Fist-Of-Freedom
09-09-2009, 12:18 PM
These people SERIOUSLY need to get a life. Absolutely pathetic.

jf1
09-09-2009, 01:43 PM
That song is beautiful and at this point falls more into secular music rather than religious. Especially if their is no vocal accompainment with it. That actually makes no sense at all. IT is not like they were singing blatant Christian hymns.

i suppose you would feel the same way if the band struck up the chinese national anthem or everybodys favorite "hymn for jihad"?

there arent words in those either...

IraHays
09-09-2009, 01:47 PM
i suppose you would feel the same way if the band struck up the chinese national anthem or everybodys favorite "hymm for jihad"?

there arent words in those either...

Come on, you can do better then that. lulz.

jf1
09-09-2009, 03:03 PM
Come on, you can do better then that. lulz.

"hymn for jihad" is a catchy tune!
it has that cadence that really works well for marching bands...

can you imagine a packed stadium humming "hymn for jihad" and doing the wave?
scary stuff!

AKR
09-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Even if they played the song with lyrics intact, why should a person get any more upset about that than the school using Huckleberry Finn in their reading list, or having a President they disagree with politically broadcast a speech to their children?


Because there's nothing unconstitutional about Huckleberry Finn or the president addressing children in school, nor do I see the harm in those things.




Why do people fear hearing a song (in Latin no less)? I don't understand how people get upset about stuff like this.


I don't know. Why don't you ask yourself why you'd be offended at hearing a Satanic song sung in Latin at your child's graduation.




It seems really immature to me. Also, as in my previous post, it's not in the Constitution, as much as people wish it was.

I beg to differ, kind sir.

Blindead
09-09-2009, 03:05 PM
The Constitution doesn't ban religion, it merely imposes a mandate on the State that it not choose a religion or enforce regulations against religions.



Where would that imply that schools can't have a saxomaphone player playing Ave Maria?

I mean, if you look at it deeply enough, schools shouldn't even be run by the government in the first place, but even ignoring that glaring bit of unconstitutionality, this kid playing a song in school doesn't violate the above quoted mandate.

Do some reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

It's generally accepted, and applied under the Lemon Test, which doesn't 100% apply here, that something of this sort must have a true secular meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_County_v._Greater_Pittsburgh_ACLU

A nativity scene, previously said to be acceptable as it did not promote religion, was struck down for containing Latin religious terms. While the song would have been instrumental, the message would still have been implied, that is, one of promoting religion.

Basically it's a huge muck up, and a lot of it depends on what judges at the time believe. Personally, I don't give a **** if a kid plays a religious song on a sax, but I do get really pissed off with all the Christian propaganda in our society.

Melkor
09-09-2009, 03:06 PM
I honestly think that if people look at this issue without a preconceived ideology they would not be able to stand for it. It's banning something simply because you don't like it, which is the exact same thing that many of the same people are saying is so wrong with book burnings and Obama-speeching.

AKR
09-09-2009, 03:23 PM
I honestly think that if people look at this issue without a preconceived ideology they would not be able to stand for it. It's banning something simply because you don't like it, which is the exact same thing that many of the same people are saying is so wrong with book burnings and Obama-speeching.


No one is banning people from listing or playing these things, just like they never banned prayer from school. Just keep religion out of the government. It is NOT banning something because we don't like it. You have already said you wouldn't want a song played that originally had anti-Christian lyrics, so you are only supporting it because you like it, however, we are against it because it is religion in the government. I don't like musicals; I'm not trying to ban them; I don't like having sex with men or marrying men; I completely support gay people. I absolutely hate your religion but I'm not trying to ban it. I'd fight for your right to have it. Don't make this something it's not. This is about the constitutional protection from religion and Christianity in particular, which has long been infested in our government and dominated society.

I'm curious: do you have a problem with teachers saying a prayer in the morning in front of the class?

SDMuscleBuddy
09-09-2009, 04:44 PM
I hope bird hasn't forgotten that I have him on ignore.

He got added to mine earlier.

Melkor
09-09-2009, 04:45 PM
No one is banning people from listing or playing these things, just like they never banned prayer from school. Just keep religion out of the government. It is NOT banning something because we don't like it. You have already said you wouldn't want a song played that originally had anti-Christian lyrics, so you are only supporting it because you like it, however, we are against it because it is religion in the government. I don't like musicals; I'm not trying to ban them; I don't like having sex with men or marrying men; I completely support gay people. I absolutely hate your religion but I'm not trying to ban it. I'd fight for your right to have it. Don't make this something it's not. This is about the constitutional protection from religion and Christianity in particular, which has long been infested in our government and dominated society.

I'm curious: do you have a problem with teachers saying a prayer in the morning in front of the class?

The problem with your argument is that you're comparing something innately offensive to something that is not. Ave Maria doesn't translate into "burn atheists with fire". If it was anti-atheist then sure, it shouldn't be played in a public school. It isn't though, it's simply religious. People need to learn to accept things that go against their own particular world view rather than knee-jerkingly try to ban them.

I don't like the idea of teachers saying a prayer in the morning, actually. That's just one more reason that kids shouldn't be forced to go to government schools, and one more reason that we should have a privately run, state or locally controlled education system in this country imo. However, if you are going to force all kids into the government run monopoly schools, I think that ideally if a teacher wants to have a prayer time in the morning, it should be personal, rather than public. Each kid could sit quietly or say his/her own private prayer. However, if my kid had a teacher that was say.. Hindu, and that teacher prayed to whatever god it is they pray to (honestly don't know) at the beginning of each class, I wouldn't fight to have prayer banned from school, I would explain to my kid that some people believe in .. Ganesh (or whatever), and we'd talk about it. Not a big whoop imo. So much "tolerance" in America, but so little actual tolerating.

More than anything else about education I would like the federal government out of it. That would solve a LOT of our nation's education problems, and a lot of these issues as well.

hybridheart
09-09-2009, 04:45 PM
The only thing I can understand is the word Maria, but it is a powerful song anyway.

potatoe
09-09-2009, 04:48 PM
Because hearing Ave Maria brainwashes people into religion?

Aren't there more important things to worry about, like the 40% of adult Americans who don't believe in evolution?


This court ruling is actually helping change that.


Did you know that if you play ave maria backwards at half-speed it says "evolution is not real, atheists are the devil"

So religion shoudln't be "forced" upon people by any form, but the government has the duty/right to make sure all people believe in evolution?

Melkor
09-09-2009, 04:51 PM
So religion shoudln't be "forced" upon people by any form, but the government has the duty/right to make sure all people believe in evolution?

I think a major difference would be evolution isn't a religious doctrine, it's simply accepted science, If anything, a short disclaimer at the beginning of the discussion such as "this is accepted science, some religions disagree" or something along those lines could be added.

reyalp
09-09-2009, 05:16 PM
I think a major difference would be evolution isn't a religious doctrine, it's simply accepted science, If anything, a short disclaimer at the beginning of the discussion such as "this is accepted science, some religions disagree" or something along those lines could be added.
That's how all of my biology teachers taught it. It was fine with me, if someone didn't want to believe it, that was their prerogative.

Calhexas
09-09-2009, 10:18 PM
there are plenty of beautiful secular classical works.
start playing 'ave maria', next thing you know, there will be a sing-along of
"hes got the whole world in his hands"...
:rolleyes:

Seriously?

Strong slippery slope.

Calhexas
09-09-2009, 10:19 PM
Yes. No matter how small it seems. Religious zealots use the "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

Jesus some of you guys are paranoid.

Blindead
09-09-2009, 10:20 PM
I don't get you guys who think education should be 100% private.

hipshimmy
09-09-2009, 11:09 PM
I'm as militant as the next atheist, but I don't see the need to ban a beautiful work of classical music from a school just because the song has religious content. If the school was imposing some sort of belief based on the song, then maybe.

It is very beautiful. I can't believe they are being that touchy about the subject.

VTheKing
09-09-2009, 11:31 PM
This is retarded. If the song is good and not an outright attempt at conversion, insult, etc. who the **** cares if it is religiously inspired or not? What's the next step, ban any songs that contain the word "God" or that makes references to the Bible, Torah or whatever?

EDIT: This is more curbing on religious freedom than secularization, by a long shot

Weightaholic
09-10-2009, 03:44 AM
It's all or nothing. Separation is separation and we can't just go on a case by case basis with religious music. Maybe that song is ok to you, but what about "Onward Christian Soldiers?" What about other religious songs? I see no place for them in the public school system, especially in a graduation ceremony, where it's about the entire class.

I heard and sang Kumbaya when I was a kid. The same goes for "He's got the whole world", yet miraculously, I escaped brainwashing. Frankly, if hearing a song is going to turn you into a foaming at the mouth Christian, you're probably a simpleminded cretin anyway.

You all know I think religion is retarded (and how!), but gloating over this like it's some sort of incredible victory is, well, just retarded in itself. It's such a massive non-event.

What's next, ban Amazing Grace? Burn all the Elvis where he sang gospel?

Weightaholic
09-10-2009, 04:05 AM
A fact to some people here.

The guy play the alto saxophone, so, is not possible to him, to say nothing religious, because he have the saxophone in his mouth..................:rolleyes:


if only that was the situation with you...
:rolleyes:

Oh, god, if only that were true.

Usually bird, I'm quite impressed that you would attempt to argue in a purely written medium in a language that's not your own, but in this thread, you need to start thinking about what you're writing. Engage your brain before touching your keyboard, because you've been rubbish.

The most insightful thing you've posted thus far in this thread has been this gem:

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Perhaps you want to get checked out for narcolepsy. You appear to have fallen asleep on your keyboard.

ONtop888
09-10-2009, 05:56 AM
Yes. No matter how small it seems. Religious zealots use the "death by a thousand cuts" approach.

LOL, sure buddy, I'm sure every student would have instantly started praising Jesus and picking up Rosary beads after hearing that song, and that must have been their intention :rolleyes:

bird72
09-10-2009, 06:10 AM
Oh, god, if only that were true.

Usually bird, I'm quite impressed that you would attempt to argue in a purely written medium in a language that's not your own, but in this thread, you need to start thinking about what you're writing. Engage your brain before touching your keyboard, because you've been rubbish.

The most insightful thing you've posted thus far in this thread has been this gem:


Perhaps you want to get checked out for narcolepsy. You appear to have fallen asleep on your keyboard.

Thanks for the compliment, it was not necessary...:D

bird72
09-10-2009, 06:11 AM
LOL, sure buddy, I'm sure every student would have instantly started praising Jesus and picking up Rosary beads after hearing that song, and that must have been their intention :rolleyes:

I think some atheists are not very sure of their God:confused:

SDMuscleBuddy
09-10-2009, 06:28 AM
LOL, sure buddy, I'm sure every student would have instantly started praising Jesus and picking up Rosary beads after hearing that song, and that must have been their intention :rolleyes:

Instantly? You clearly don't understand the meaning of "Death by a thousand cuts."

ONtop888
09-10-2009, 06:36 AM
Instantly? You clearly don't understand the meaning of "Death by a thousand cuts."

Ok, gradually.......

If anything it could provoke an interest that could be later pursued, but it is baseless to mark this up as a "cut" that leads unto "death" (conversion). I particularly enjoyed kingtego's objective answer on the matter.

bird72
09-10-2009, 06:47 AM
Ok, gradually.......

If anything it could provoke an interest that could be later pursued, but it is baseless to mark this up as a "cut" that leads unto "death" (conversion). I particularly enjoyed kingtego's objective answer on the matter.

I am happy with the non fanatical atheist who post very good post about these. That's make clear we can discuss this without fanaticism. as I said, I can't imagine a group of atheist, protesting, because the government provide funds for the exhibition of the David of Miguel Angel.

jf1
09-10-2009, 07:00 AM
I am happy with the non fanatical atheist who post very good post about these. That's make clear we can discuss this without fanaticism. as I said, I can't imagine a group of atheist, protesting, because the government provide funds for the exhibition of the David of Miguel Angel.

how is 'david' a religious symbol?
he is a naked man.

"but his name iz david and he iz a man created by teh god!"
:rolleyes:

IraHays
09-10-2009, 07:04 AM
how is 'david' a religious symbol?
he is a naked man.

"but his name iz david and he iz a man created by teh god!"
:rolleyes:


It supppose to be King David from the Bible, if I'm not mistaken...

YARDGORILLA
09-10-2009, 07:18 AM
After hearing "Amazing Grace" at a school function I spoke in tongues.

bird72
09-10-2009, 07:19 AM
how is 'david' a religious symbol?
he is a naked man.

"but his name iz david and he iz a man created by teh god!"
:rolleyes:

!King David is from the bible man!, and he is a religious symbol, read a little more.


David (Michelangelo)
David is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture sculpted by Michelangelo from 1501 to 1504. The 5.17 meter (17 ft)[1] marble statue portrays the Biblical King David in the nude. Unlike previous depictions of David which portray the hero after his victory over Goliath, Michelangelo chose to represent David before the fight contemplating the battle yet to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

I want to see you and your atheist ordes trying to ban this sculpture because is from the bible.:rolleyes:





It supppose to be King David from the Bible, if I'm not mistaken...

Yes, is the King David from the Bible, and i think Jackfast not whining about the sculpture because is a sculpture of a nude man.:D

IraHays
09-10-2009, 07:21 AM
After hearing "Amazing Grace" at a school function I spoke in tongues.

You too! I also ran outside and picked up some snakes.

Melkor
09-10-2009, 07:22 AM
Why do we have to fight? :(

:D

DangerDan
09-10-2009, 07:37 AM
Wow, as an atheist I think this is ridiculous and people should be able to play whatever music they want at graduation.

AKR
09-10-2009, 07:58 AM
The problem with your argument is that you're comparing something innately offensive to something that is not.

That's pretty arrogant.


Ave Maria doesn't translate into "burn atheists with fire". If it was anti-atheist then sure, it shouldn't be played in a public school. It isn't though, it's simply religious. People need to learn to accept things that go against their own particular world view rather than knee-jerkingly try to ban them.

It IS anti-theist and it DOES translate to "burn atheists with fire" because the religion is inherently anti-atheist. According to most Christians and most Catholics, we're going to be burned in hell. Also, the same god, according to the religion, is responsible for killing millions of people, including children, and also responsible for commanding the murder of many more. It's anti-atheist and anti-anything-that-isn't-Christian. Some people don't have a problem with your religion just like some people don't have a problem with hanging Christians. For you to say one is "innately offensive" and the other is not is pretty arrogant and self-centered. I like you, but you're way off with this one.




I don't like the idea of teachers saying a prayer in the morning, actually. That's just one more reason that kids shouldn't be forced to go to government schools, and one more reason that we should have a privately run, state or locally controlled education system in this country imo. However, if you are going to force all kids into the government run monopoly schools, I think that ideally if a teacher wants to have a prayer time in the morning, it should be personal, rather than public. Each kid could sit quietly or say his/her own private prayer. However, if my kid had a teacher that was say.. Hindu, and that teacher prayed to whatever god it is they pray to (honestly don't know) at the beginning of each class, I wouldn't fight to have prayer banned from school, I would explain to my kid that some people believe in .. Ganesh (or whatever), and we'd talk about it. Not a big whoop imo. So much "tolerance" in America, but so little actual tolerating.

More than anything else about education I would like the federal government out of it. That would solve a LOT of our nation's education problems, and a lot of these issues as well.


I would be afraid of individual states being left up to control education. Too many states would destroy the system with religion. They'd take out evolution, teach creationism, and put as much Christianity in the schools as possible. Every time a politician talks about getting the feds out of something, it's because they don't like how religion is blocked from taking over.

I just don't think religion has any place in a public school system. Children are there to be educated, not indoctrinated, and I don't know why it's so difficult to just choose a non-religious song.

reyalp
09-10-2009, 07:58 AM
how is 'david' a religious symbol?
he is a naked man.

"but his name iz david and he iz a man created by teh god!"
:rolleyes:

quoting so you can't edit it

bird72
09-10-2009, 08:10 AM
That's pretty arrogant.



It IS anti-theist and it DOES translate to "burn atheists with fire" because the religion is inherently anti-atheist. According to most Christians and most Catholics, we're going to be burned in hell. Also, the same god, according to the religion, is responsible for killing millions of people, including children, and also responsible for commanding the murder of many more. It's anti-atheist and anti-anything-that-isn't-Christian. Some people don't have a problem with your religion just like some people don't have a problem with hanging Christians. For you to say one is "innately offensive" and the other is not is pretty arrogant and self-centered. I like you, but you're way off with this one.





I would be afraid of individual states being left up to control education. Too many states would destroy the system with religion. They'd take out evolution, teach creationism, and put as much Christianity in the schools as possible. Every time a politician talks about getting the feds out of something, it's because they don't like how religion is blocked from taking over.

I just don't think religion has any place in a public school system. Children are there to be educated, not indoctrinated, and I don't know why it's so difficult to just choose a non-religious song.

this \/ \/ \/


Wow, as an atheist I think this is ridiculous and people should be able to play whatever music they want at graduation.

Melkor
09-10-2009, 08:16 AM
That's pretty arrogant.
It wasn't intended to be.

It IS anti-theist and it DOES translate to "burn atheists with fire" because the religion is inherently anti-atheist. According to most Christians and most Catholics, we're going to be burned in hell. Also, the same god, according to the religion, is responsible for killing millions of people, including children, and also responsible for commanding the murder of many more. It's anti-atheist and anti-anything-that-isn't-Christian. Some people don't have a problem with your religion just like some people don't have a problem with hanging Christians. For you to say one is "innately offensive" and the other is not is pretty arrogant and self-centered. I like you, but you're way off with this one.
What I meant is this; Ave Maria is not explicitly offensive. In order to be offended you would have to go through a long series of assumptions, eventually leading you to the conclusion that the person playing Ave Maria on his saxomaphone wanted you to burn in fire. If it was a song that explicitly stated "I wish atheists would burn in fire" and then the person played the song without the words, that would be a much more explicit offense. Or, on the other side of the coin, if an atheist wrote a song explicitly anti-Christian and then played it without the lyrics that would also be explicitly offensive.

IF however, an atheist simply played a song that didn't imply a belief in God, would that be offensive? One could infer that his intent was to imply that God does not exist, and therefore that it was anti-Christian...

It's kind of a silly argument that implicitly, by playing a song that has religious lyrics, the kid wants atheists to burn in hell. I like you, but I think you're wrong here. :D

I would be afraid of individual states being left up to control education. Too many states would destroy the system with religion. They'd take out evolution, teach creationism, and put as much Christianity in the schools as possible. Every time a politician talks about getting the feds out of something, it's because they don't like how religion is blocked from taking over.

I just don't think religion has any place in a public school system. Children are there to be educated, not indoctrinated, and I don't know why it's so difficult to just choose a non-religious song.

Well, the Feds are doing a bang up job. :p

There needs to be more competition in education. The federal govt doesn't provide that, especially the way the system is now designed. Whatever needs to change to fix the current problem, we need to do it, and worrying about prayer in school is low on the list of immediate priority imo.

AKR
09-10-2009, 08:32 AM
It wasn't intended to be.

What I meant is this; Ave Maria is not explicitly offensive. In order to be offended you would have to go through a long series of assumptions, eventually leading you to the conclusion that the person playing Ave Maria on his saxomaphone wanted you to burn in fire.


lullz. I can imagine someone on a Sax, eying me during graduation with an intense, angry look.

And then, he points at me:





















http://i26.tinypic.com/t7om13.jpg





If it was a song that explicitly stated "I wish atheists would burn in fire" and then the person played the song without the words, that would be a much more explicit offense. Or, on the other side of the coin, if an atheist wrote a song explicitly anti-Christian and then played it without the lyrics that would also be explicitly offensive.

IF however, an atheist simply played a song that didn't imply a belief in God, would that be offensive? One could infer that his intent was to imply that God does not exist, and therefore that it was anti-Christian...

It's kind of a silly argument that implicitly, by playing a song that has religious lyrics, the kid wants atheists to burn in hell. I like you, but I think you're wrong here. :D



Well, I just see things differently, and to get back to the original point, if a song is not acceptable because of it's lyrics, even without those lyrics, then it applies to a religious song. Religion isn't allowed, so if you think a song still holds it's character even without the lyrics, it applies to this song.





Well, the Feds are doing a bang up job. :p

There needs to be more competition in education. The federal govt doesn't provide that, especially the way the system is now designed. Whatever needs to change to fix the current problem, we need to do it, and worrying about prayer in school is low on the list of immediate priority imo.


Well, Bush screwed things up with the No Child Left Behind crap. I don't think the system is perfect, but I think it would be 10x worse if left up to the states. I don't think "competition" should entail religious brainwashing schools. That's not competition - it's continued erosion of our education system.

Blindead
09-10-2009, 11:59 AM
oh, btw, I'm covering a subject similar to this in my legal/historical class on censorship and i found the supreme court cases (all still valid) which show that this more than likely would have been ruled as a violation of the establishment clause, assuming we dont have whacko judges who go against precedent.

Captain Harris
09-10-2009, 12:19 PM
At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa during WWII, many peasants embraced the German invaders who let them hold church services; the first religious services they'd been allowed to hold in almost 25 years due to suppression by the Soviet regime.



I wonder what will happen over here in the same time period.

wanaBsedated
09-10-2009, 02:08 PM
Where is the line where seperation of church and state start to impose upon personal freedom, expression and denial of rights?

.....

Blindead
09-10-2009, 02:20 PM
Chief Judge Boyle relied on the tripartite Establishment Clause test developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman. n19 The Lemon test provides that Establishment Clause violations occur when the government undertakes an action that has a non-secular legislative purpose, has the principle or primary effect of endorsing religion, or fosters excessive govern-mental entanglement with religion. n20 State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails any one of the three parts. n21 Chief Judge Boyle noted that the Supreme Court has "relied on Lemon in every case involving the sensitive relationship between government and religion in the education of our children." n22 He concluded that the practice of including invocations and benedictions in public school graduations failed the effect part of the Lemon test. n23 Because the graduation ceremonies identified the state with religion and appeared to endorse religion, the school's action had a primary effect of advancing religion. n24 On appeal, the First Circuit summarily affirmed in a one-sentence opinion: "We are in agreement with the sound and pellucid opinion of the district court and see no reason to elaborate further." n25

there's precedent there. and i know some ignorant dumbass will say drrerrerrr that's music not invocatoinz! in which case i'll preemptively tell you to gtfo and read a book.