THIS IS NOT A THREAD ON USING RELIGIOUS WORKS IN SCHOOLS, A COMMON PRACTICE WITH CHOIRS. THIS IS A THREAD ON PRODUCING RELIGIOUS LITERATURE FOR SCHOOLS
Our school's chorus is performing an opera in May. Our chorus director wrote the play herself, writing original music, all of the dialog and modifying pre existing works. She has worked on this during her free time as well as on the clock. Students are involved the process, with a lot of people helping during study halls and after school.
Now on to my concern... the plot. Here is the gist of it. They begin by singing about a girl named sinner(all of the names are in roman, so sounds a bit less obvious) who lives a life of hedonism, strongly implied because she isn't religious. A girl arrives named grace, who sings about "the lord has sent a message for thee"(in english) Sinner, of course, tells grace to leave her house. Then a guy named temptation comes along, they all sing about how she is damned, and she dies. She goes to heaven and I am a bit foggy on the rest of the play.
So it is definitely religious, and the chorus director has authority over the students as a government employee. Now, the problem is that the state is not allowed to "promote or inhibit a particular religion" as part of the lemon test and establishment clause. Is this a problem worth going to the higher ups about?
DO NOT post in this thread if you are not familiar with the lemon test, establishment clause, and at least one court case related to religion in public schools. If at all possible, cite relevant court cases when calling someone wrong. Let's have a productive discussion.
I don't think this is a problem. I think the religious aspects are fairly vague, no students are compelled, I presume not every play has a religious bend, and it's after school hours. I think the best analogy might be religious clubs in high schools, which were ruled permissible.
Ouze wrote: I don't think this is a problem. I think the religious aspects are fairly vague, no students are compelled, I presume not every play has a religious bend, and it's after school hours. I think the best analogy might be religious clubs in high schools, which were ruled permissible.
One thing I forgot to mention is that it is for class and the subject matter for the opera wasn't revealed to the student population until they class had already began.
I'd mention it to them just as a formality. Something along the lines of "someone may preiceve this as bad and sue." School districts will often have some sort of lawyer available, and they could easily tell the school whether or not it was legal
It doesn't really sound ill-intentioned, just a tad unthinking. People who are religious often assume all people think the way they do, same for atheists (I can speak to my personal expreince for that).
That depends on how important you and the other people involved think it is. It's a blatant violation of separation of church and state, the teacher is using school resources and her position of authority to promote her own religion. But are you bothered by it enough to fight about it? Are you willing to take it to court if the school disagrees with you? Are you willing to deal with the anger from your fellow students if their play has to be canceled? It's easy for me to say "yes, get this thing canceled asap" but you're the one who has to deal with the consequences.
Ouze wrote: I don't think this is a problem. I think the religious aspects are fairly vague, no students are compelled, I presume not every play has a religious bend, and it's after school hours. I think the best analogy might be religious clubs in high schools, which were ruled permissible.
This doesn't really apply because it was an outside group asking to use the school building, not the school being directly responsible for the activity. And in the case of religious clubs the role of the school employees is limited to organizational things (getting a room to meet in, etc). The OP's situation involves a teacher promoting her own religious beliefs in a class.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: School districts will often have some sort of lawyer available, and they could easily tell the school whether or not it was legal.
Not necessarily. There's a long history of school districts taking kind of case to court even though everyone else understands they have no hope of winning, because it's their religious duty to do these things. A lawyer isn't enough, you need a lawyer that understands the situation and is willing to give good legal advice instead of religious ideology.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It doesn't really sound ill-intentioned, just a tad unthinking. People who are religious often assume all people think the way they do, same for atheists (I can speak to my personal expreince for that).
See I don't know if it is always unthinking. I mean it's nice to believe they just didn't consider other perspectives but this seems like, from the OP, that it has been crafted with considerable time and effort. Often as not it seems like these things are done with a sort of parental mindset- I know better and I'm going to go ahead and do the 'right' thing regardless. It just seems more plausible that she know what she's doing and is hoping to get away with it than she's ignorant of the First Amendment. I could be wrong though.
Either way, it shouldn't be part of a class (compelling students who want to pass to participate) and it shouldn't be done on school time/payroll.
Kojiro wrote: See I don't know if it is always unthinking. I mean it's nice to believe they just didn't consider other perspectives but this seems like, from the OP, that it has been crafted with considerable time and effort. Often as not it seems like these things are done with a sort of parental mindset- I know better and I'm going to go ahead and do the 'right' thing regardless. It just seems more plausible that she know what she's doing and is hoping to get away with it than she's ignorant of the First Amendment. I could be wrong though.
I think there honestly is a lack of awareness sometimes. When you're the overwhelming majority it's easy to forget that some people don't share your beliefs. If you assume that everyone in the school is some variety of Christian and never consider the possibility of people who might object to your religion then it's just a harmless play with some ideas that nobody would ever have a problem with. Obviously that's a stupid way to look at it once you stop to think about it, but I think a lot of people genuinely do exist in sheltered worlds where their assumptions are never challenged.
The issue is it sounds like the songs being sung are going to be seen valid as pieces due to music history and you can't help that a lot of music which is classical has religious tones.
All she did was take classical pieces with themes and stories in them and make a framing device.
Sounds like she took 80s rock and turned them into Rock of Ages.
And is it actually religious? Why is it not mythical? Schools do all sorts of works which result in actors portraying both real-life religious acts, mythical acts and fictional acts. Many musical classes, especially choral do operas, musicals and madrigals all the time.
Bottom line... You don't like it... get a lawyer... That is how law is actually made is someone sues and finds out if they are right or not. I suspect such a case would go nowhere because no religion is being promoted even though it is vaguely generic Christianity, and no one is actually worshiping anything.
If this type of thing bothers you... you probably should drop out of all music education since you will face a crap ton of religiously themed music in your future education and if you can't separate human history which happens to include religion to being 'forced to worship against your will' you gonna have a bad time. You gonna cry when you get to college and your professor forces you to sing at her church for your grade and you have zero recourse. (It does happen and they can make you do it... Enjoy!)
Simple question: What part of the US is this? I know it isn't popular, but depending where this school is and the type of school system will probably say a lot about intentions and if you actually have a shot in hell of doing something. A north east city school vs a bible belt underfunded school district are going to have totally different reactions to a complaint and very different legal responses if it went to court.
If you want real legal advice / discussion, consult with a lawyer if this is a real issue. I'm a former professional paralegal that focused in criminal law, and did some constitutional work as well.
On a gaming forum whatever real legal logic you're looking for is going to get polluted with opinion and convoluted interpretation. In fact, anyone posting just one or two case citations is pretty much proving they don't understand legal research. Unless someone has a westlaw or lexis nexis search they can show me with links to cases, and the flags illustrating how they were modified, overturned, or supported comprehensively through the years from further cases, for both federal and state courts (if applicable to the issue), then i'd take any legal logic gleaned from this thread at all with a serious pinch of salt. And by pinch i mean dump truck.
About the only person i can name off the top of my head that i'd take at face value would be Weeble, as he has a confirmed track record of sound legal pontifications on this site.
Seriously, if you're bothered by this situation and you think that rights are being infringed upon, consult a lawyer in a firm that specializes at least partially in constitutional law.
Also note, as a former paralegal with a valid certification still active, i'm not even going to give my opinion in this thread, as it's coming WAY too close to the unauthorized practice of law for a paralegal if i do so, just because of how it's set up, and I'd rather not even flirt with losing my accreditation over something like that. If you're concerned, consult an attorney. You're not going to find sound legal constitutional advice on this site.
nkelsch wrote: The issue is it sounds like the songs being sung are going to be seen valid as pieces due to music history and you can't help that a lot of music which is classical has religious tones.
Actually the OP says that the story and music are original work. That's not a legitimate class in historical music (which wouldn't be complete without covering important pieces that have religious content), it's a bunch of new work by the teacher that might have a few references to some older stuff. The students aren't learning anything about important historical pieces or the context in which they were written and performed.
And is it actually religious? Why is it not mythical?
Because it's a straightforward example of Christian doctrine.
Schools do all sorts of works which result in actors portraying both real-life religious acts, mythical acts and fictional acts. Many musical classes, especially choral do operas, musicals and madrigals all the time.
Sure, but those works are ones with legitimate academic value. If you're going to teach a class in music/theater/etc you obviously have to cover important works in the genre, but that doesn't mean endorsing their content. But that isn't the case here, the teacher is using her own material that she created.
You gonna cry when you get to college and your professor forces you to sing at her church for your grade and you have zero recourse. (It does happen and they can make you do it... Enjoy!)
Citation please? Could you provide a case where the courts allowed a professor at a state-funded university to force their students to perform religious music at the professor's church? Because that goes way beyond legitimate academic work and into forcing the students to participate in a specific religious ceremony.
Citation please? Could you provide a case where the courts allowed a professor at a state-funded university to force their students to perform religious music at the professor's church? Because that goes way beyond legitimate academic work and into forcing the students to participate in a specific religious ceremony.
I can tell you multiple state-funded universities which do it. I am in a national men's music fraternity and it is common practice. I know of at least 12 schools on the east coast which require such actions because you are required to do X number of public musical performances a semester and many of the ones required are performing at churches especially during Christmas. Often because a lot of the songs being taught in the class have religious origins.
I can also tell you that there are professors at Penn state who force you to do fundraising for his personal charity to pass his class and it has nothing to do with the curriculum. And they are down in my town multiple times a year being forced to do fund raising or fail. And it has been argued and basically tenured teachers are given latitude on deciding what 'education' consists of.
You can pretend it doesn't happen, and you can attempt to take it to court if you don't like it. I am just saying it is common, and if you try to fight it, you will either lose horribly and destroy your education, or possibly win, gain nothing and destroy your education. That is just the reality of it, especially with how some regions of the US are blanketed in elected judges who are highly religious. So if Music education is a goal... you will need to come to an understanding that it will probably be partially paved in religious themes.
I also would need more information before I believe what the OP says. I would need to observe the entirety to realize if it is a legitimate issue or a teen who lacks experience and understanding of things and is breaking it down into a black and white issue out of context. I am just saying that I have observed 'similar' things out there and it is not at all religious. We have a program here where 4th graders write original operas as a class as part of the curriculum and some of them could come close to being considered 'religious themes' if someone was looking for something to be offended about. Pretty much anything which is 'thiest' in theme, even mythical and supernatural stuff would be considered 'bad' by that standard, even if student created.
If you don't like it... Quit to protect your conscience or get a lawyer if your rights have been violated.
nkelsch wrote: I can tell you multiple state-funded universities which do it. I am in a national men's music fraternity and it is common practice. I know of at least 12 schools on the east coast which require such actions because you are required to do X number of public musical performances a semester and many of the ones required are performing at churches especially during Christmas. Often because a lot of the songs being taught in the class have religious origins.
Can you give an example of a court case where this was challenged? Merely stating that it happens isn't proof that it's legal, as the courts can't intervene unless someone asks them to.
I can also tell you that there are professors at Penn state who force you to do fundraising for his personal charity to pass his class and it has nothing to do with the curriculum. And they are down in my town multiple times a year being forced to do fund raising or fail. And it has been argued and basically tenured teachers are given latitude on deciding what 'education' consists of.
Similarly, has this been challenged in court? And, if so, can you provide an example of a case where the courts approved "spend time raising money for my charity or fail"?
We have a program here where 4th graders write original operas as a class as part of the curriculum and some of them could come close to being considered 'religious themes' if someone was looking for something to be offended about.
But there's a huge difference between a student voluntarily creating something with religious content and a teacher promoting their own religion. Separation of church and state isn't about creating a magic "no god" zone around schools, it's about preventing the state (or its representatives) from exploiting the imbalance of power in a teacher-student relationship to promote their own ideology.
nkelsch wrote: I can tell you multiple state-funded universities which do it. I am in a national men's music fraternity and it is common practice. I know of at least 12 schools on the east coast which require such actions because you are required to do X number of public musical performances a semester and many of the ones required are performing at churches especially during Christmas. Often because a lot of the songs being taught in the class have religious origins.
Can you give an example of a court case where this was challenged? Merely stating that it happens isn't proof that it's legal, as the courts can't intervene unless someone asks them to.
I can also tell you that there are professors at Penn state who force you to do fundraising for his personal charity to pass his class and it has nothing to do with the curriculum. And they are down in my town multiple times a year being forced to do fund raising or fail. And it has been argued and basically tenured teachers are given latitude on deciding what 'education' consists of.
Similarly, has this been challenged in court? And, if so, can you provide an example of a case where the courts approved "spend time raising money for my charity or fail"?
We have a program here where 4th graders write original operas as a class as part of the curriculum and some of them could come close to being considered 'religious themes' if someone was looking for something to be offended about.
But there's a huge difference between a student voluntarily creating something with religious content and a teacher promoting their own religion. Separation of church and state isn't about creating a magic "no god" zone around schools, it's about preventing the state (or its representatives) from exploiting the imbalance of power in a teacher-student relationship to promote their own ideology.
I didn't say it was 'legal', I said it was 'reality'... Life performance of classical works is quite common for music majors in higher education and you perform where you can get a gig.
And I suspect that performing at a church is not the same as worshiping at a church in the eyes of a lot of courts and as long as students have the ability to 'quit' then nothing will come of it. Knowing politics of higher education, you can be forced failed if your professor doesn't like you with zero recourse so often it is easier to just muddle through than to fight the power.
Like I said... if the poster is a 15 year old in Texas, I would probably laugh because even the courts will be religiously stacked and his case may never see the light of day. If he was maybe in the north East in a major metro area, I suspect you would find an advocacy group itching to take this on in court and courts willing to issue an injunction. Pretending the courts are equal in the US and that things actually get handled correctly in the courts is a pipe dream when 80% of our judges are elected.
nkelsch wrote: Life performance of classical works is quite common for music majors in higher education and you perform where you can get a gig.
But that's not what we have here. This isn't a case of performing classical works of significant academic merit, it's a teacher writing her own "Jesus is awesome" music and telling the students to perform it.
And I suspect that performing at a church is not the same as worshiping at a church in the eyes of a lot of courts and as long as students have the ability to 'quit' then nothing will come of it.
I don't think "you're just singing religious music as part of a religious service but it isn't technically worshiping" is a very credible argument, unless a lot more churches then I'm aware of hire secular businesses to provide their music instead of a choir composed of members of that church. Nor is "but you can always quit and drop out of college if you don't like it" a very convincing argument.
Knowing politics of higher education, you can be forced failed if your professor doesn't like you with zero recourse
nkelsch wrote: Life performance of classical works is quite common for music majors in higher education and you perform where you can get a gig.
But that's not what we have here. This isn't a case of performing classical works of significant academic merit, it's a teacher writing her own "Jesus is awesome" music and telling the students to perform it.
And I suspect that performing at a church is not the same as worshiping at a church in the eyes of a lot of courts and as long as students have the ability to 'quit' then nothing will come of it.
I don't think "you're just singing religious music as part of a religious service but it isn't technically worshiping" is a very credible argument, unless a lot more churches then I'm aware of hire secular businesses to provide their music instead of a choir composed of members of that church. Nor is "but you can always quit and drop out of college if you don't like it" a very convincing argument.
Knowing politics of higher education, you can be forced failed if your professor doesn't like you with zero recourse
{Citation needed.}
Eh... I would have to see the works to see a 'roman' play somehow showing Jesus is awesome. Like I said, it may be that, or it may be a grossly ignorant 1-sided interpretation by a jaded teenager. I suspect it is much more in the middle than either extreme which is why it won't be an easy case or will probably even see a court room.
I have regularly been paid in the past to perform instrumental performances for baptist churches for special occasions where they wanted an instrumental accompaniment. It is more common than you think. Churches commonly provide singers for weddings as well to sing specific songs for weddings. Often those singers are not actual members of the congregation and are simply local talent which are on the local short list of performers who want to make a quick 100$ for singing a single hymn during a ceremony. Musical talent is harder to come by than you think. It is actually quite a good way to make cash as a college student.
And you really need a citation for 'tenure' and crazy examples of how professors in the US abuse it? I had a math professor at my state school who said openly 'women can't do math' and no females would ever get over a C in his class. you could get 100% on a test and still be given a C because he would claim 'they haven't shown mastery of the information'. This was taken to the president of the university while I was there and basically nothing was done. I know dozens of people with similar 'abused tenure' examples as well as there are lots of documented examples on the internet. Higher education is full of 'abuse of power' hence why the tenure system is on the chopping block.
While I understand where you are coming from, high school and uni are quiet different. And the atheist secular population at my school is about 15 percent, although our town has a large catholic group. It's not Texas, it isn't the northeast. Please don't resort to attacking the person, not the issue, I am not quite an unreliable jaded teacher. grossly ignorant 1-sided interpretation- Please assume that what I am telling you is the truth, because if you look at my OP, you will notice that any areas which I am uncertain of I have marked as so and none of the issues present are opinions. I am in the top 2% grades at my school and am a well rounded person, I would not resort to stacking the deck due to it being an obvious logical fallacy. All of the information on the opera was gotten first person when she described the plot. And I do not plan to pursue music into college.
That depends on how important you and the other people involved think it is. It's a blatant violation of separation of church and state, the teacher is using school resources and her position of authority to promote her own religion.
This is not an area in which I am terribly familiar with the specific case law, but from a constitutional perspective, the gist of separation of church and state is what Peregrine has described; it is a proscription against indoctrination. It is perfectly fine to have religious activities take place on and within government properties/programs. We are actually pretty darn religious in the United States. The issue is whether the state is promoting one religion over another, either by endorsement or condemnation. That is what the various prongs of the Lemon Test are about.
Entanglement, Effect, Purpose.
I agree with Peregrine that the issue here is that the religious activity is taking place within a classroom.
The instructor's right to free speech stops at the student's right to not be indoctrinated into a particular religious practice. Education is a statutory requirement. Public education is provided so that citizens may satisfy those requirements. The state cannot require citizens to participate in an activity which advances a particular religion. Voluntary activities are acceptable. And citizens have a right to free expression. So in the US we don't prevent a teacher from wearing a hijab. We don't prevent a public building from being utilized for the purposes of voluntary assembly, even if that assembly promotes a particular religion. But the state cannot be entangled with that religious activity. The effect of the state's practices cannot be the advancement or inhibition of religious activity. The purpose of the state's practices cannot be religious.
I also agree with Peregrine that you have to pick your battles. If you want to fight about this, it will be a fight. It will be contentious.
I recommend that you look for a lawyer who is interested in taking on these types of cases. You can start by looking at the attorneys in recent lemon test cases. You can also try to get in touch with the ACLU and see if someone there can provide you with some advice.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd mention it to them just as a formality. Something along the lines of "someone may preiceve this as bad and sue." School districts will often have some sort of lawyer available, and they could easily tell the school whether or not it was legal
I think this is the best advice. I would also say that the depiction of a nonreligious person as hedonistic, and named "sinner" is offensive to Atheists and Secular Humanists, who deserve to be treated with the same respect as any other religious group (For example, they are protected under the first amendment). Even if the production is not illegal, it is still inappropriate.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd mention it to them just as a formality. Something along the lines of "someone may preiceve this as bad and sue." School districts will often have some sort of lawyer available, and they could easily tell the school whether or not it was legal
I think this is the best advice. I would also say that the depiction of a nonreligious person as hedonistic, and named "sinner" is offensive to Atheists and Secular Humanists, who deserve to be treated with the same respect as any other religious group (For example, they are protected under the first amendment). Even if the production is not illegal, it is still inappropriate.
And that is important. Regardless of whether you make a legal challenge, you may at least feel better about the situation if you say something about it. But also remember Peregrine's advice about picking your battles.
I was getting driven home from the airport yesterday and, I swear to God that this is true, my driver litterally casually mentioned that Hitler had some good ideas, he just executed them poorly. And all I had said to provoke this slurry of avant-garde opinions was to tell him that my wife is getting her PhD in history.
Did I say anything about it? No. My paralegal is going to make sure that we never use that car service again, but it certainly wasn't worth making a thing of in the car at the time, and it really isn't worth making a thing of with the company after the fact beyond a simple formal complaint.
So the best action at this point would probably be to write a polite, formal request to a school official to look into it further, stating what points of contention I have with it?
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: So the best action at this point would probably be to write a polite, formal request to a school official to look into it further, stating what points of contention I have with it?
That's a good first step.
But another first step could be to speak with the teacher about it.
She already knows about my opinions on it. Had a conversation basically along these lines. -while I don't want to make you uncomfortable, I don't want this to cause dissent in the chorus, this thing poisons a chorus. Try imagining a different meaning to the play.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: She already knows about my opinions on it. Had a conversation basically along these lines. -while I don't want to make you uncomfortable, I don't want this to cause dissent in the chorus, this thing poisons a chorus. Try imagining a different meaning to the play.
And this is exactly why separation of church and state matters in schools: because otherwise teachers (and other school employees) can bring their personal religious beliefs into school activities and then pressure anyone who disagrees with them to shut up and go along with it or risk being blamed for causing "conflict". This teacher needs to take responsibility for her actions and find a different play to perform. She has an obligation, both legally and ethically, to refrain from endorsing any religion in her duties as a school employee. Blaming you (or anyone else who complains) for "causing dissent" because you don't want to participate in her religious activity is entirely unacceptable.
Of course this does reinforce what I said earlier: she's clearly setting it up to portray herself as the victim and blame you for ruining everything. So while you're right that what she's doing is inappropriate you should think carefully about whether you want to deal with that blame. Even when you know it's unfair blame you might not enjoy being at the center of that kind of public controversy.
If I was a student who had invested a significant amount of time and energy working on a production and someone got it shut down because they were bothered by it featuring some generic religious imagery in Latin, I would be furious.
Some Shakespeare plays feature Pagan imagery and characters and also feature influences from Greek and Roman religion. Would you be bothered if the school was doing a Shakespeare production?
Hordini wrote: If I was a student who had invested a significant amount of time and energy working on a production and someone got it shut down because they were bothered by it featuring some generic religious imagery in Latin, I would be furious.
It's not just the contents, it's the fact that it's a teacher blatantly endorsing a particular religion and getting students to participate in it.
Some Shakespeare plays feature Pagan imagery and characters and also feature influences from Greek and Roman religion. Would you be bothered if the school was doing a Shakespeare production?
No, for two reasons:
1) A Shakespeare play has legitimate academic value. They're important historical works, and it would be difficult to study literature or theater without covering Shakespeare. This play, on the other hand, is something the teacher created herself. It has no historical significance, and the students wouldn't be losing anything by not performing or studying it.
2) Performing a historically-significant play is not the same thing as endorsing all of its contents. You can present a Shakespeare play (or any other significant work with religious context) in an academic context without ever saying "I agree with this" and pressuring students to share those beliefs. But in this case it's pretty clear that the play is a statement of the teacher's personal religious beliefs, and that crosses the line into endorsing a particular religion.
Although the play (?) seems to have no particularly Christian themes (although OP's description is very vague), as opposed to merely generically contemporary "Western" ones, I think it is willfully myopic to pretend there is no religious context here. That said, my impression is neither OP nor any of his classmates are sincerely troubled by the play -- surely he would be able to recite the details otherwise. On the other hand, the apparent absence of actual harm can be deceptive. Students who are genuinely uncomfortable about this may simply not be coming forward. That said, this does seem to be more of an issue of personal ethics or at most school policy rather than constitutional law.
Just to murky up the water a bit, at most public schools "fine arts" are entirely elective which is why there's usually fundraisers and such to "save" them as the state curricula rarely, if ever, requires such a thing and funds them accordingly. While you may have to perform this play to pass the class, I can see where an unsympathetic judge would rule you need not take that class to graduate according to the state and thus participation is voluntary.
As said earlier, elected judges play into that if the community is largely religious. Would that stand up on appeal? Who knows, but that would add tremendously to time you're wrapped up in this hypothetical suit. Court cases are often measured in years for these sorts of issues with schools so at some level you need to ask if its worth it and be ready for that long, grueling march if needs be. Over a terrible play written by someone amply demonstrating why they're not working in the theatrical business, I'm not sure it's worth it.
However, it is worth bringing up to higher school officials if it bothers you. Nothing may come of it owing to other laws and norms of where you are, but at least you'll have said something. Again, depending on what they're able to do (teacher's unions, tenure, etc.), they may resolve the situation with less fuss, but as others pointed out, you will be the focus of a lot of blame regardless if the play is stopped. I'm not saying you should suffer in silence, but being the focus of a lot of ire is an inevitability you need to be ready for if you pursue it.
While most of your post is valid, a fine arts credit is required to graduate. I told a certain official at the school- her two reasons for not canceling it were- in this order- it would make her extremely unpopular and I should have come to her immediately. Which in all fairness I shouldn't have wasted my time trying to prevent it without going to someone higher up first.
While a fine arts credit may be required, there's many other ones that would also satisfy that requirement versus the Math curriculum which specifies you must have Algebra I and higher or Language Arts or the other "core" subjects. Hence why its your Fine Arts "elective" credit. Again, I'm not saying the rationale is legally valid, just that a judge, especially an elected one in a religious community, might take the easy out at that point and rule your participation in this particular class is voluntary. There's what the law says, and how things actually work. Unfortunately those two things are usually not in perfect alignment. You can push to get more visibility onto the topic which will nudge them closer together, but again, that's where you end up spending years of your life on this particular cause, in addition to the general hassle of life at that stage.
Hypothetical cases aside, assuming you're in a public school system of many schools (versus a division of one), chances are that official has a boss and you can go to them. You can realistically continue to escalate all the way to the School Board though again, depending on your locality you will run into the "elected official" problem. However, while the local official may not wish to be "the bad guy" in shutting things down, the division officials typically have less concern over such things (dramatically less so in larger systems); they're far away from the daily backlash and the local people can go "Hey, I didn't want to, the big-wigs made me." Bears repeating that if you're in an overly religious area where the higher people are similarly inclined even that is unlikely to bring relief.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: While most of your post is valid, a fine arts credit is required to graduate. I told a certain official at the school- her two reasons for not canceling it were- in this order- it would make her extremely unpopular and I should have come to her immediately. Which in all fairness I shouldn't have wasted my time trying to prevent it without going to someone higher up first.
The play sounds ham fisted, but it is an elective. You should save your energy for real fights.
They have "postponed" the opera. Everyone is shocked, despite knowing for 5 months what they were doing was wrong. The principal is "shocked" despite him knowing how illegal it was, and saying he wasn't going to touch it only because it would make him "unpopular".
It's not like religion was ever the only way teachers could make things bad for students.
My music teacher in 13-15 was a baptist pastor, but he was a real professional. Even if he asked us boys with a deeper voice to help with the bass for the school christmas play it never came across as forcing or coercing. As said, a true professional.
But the music teacher in our Gymnasium (High School equivalent) wasa different matter. He didn't care about religion, but he always favored students that took part in his yearly music show in an earlier school. It could ofc be that I'm mistaken, but I would be surprised if it was showed that people not from his elementary school, or who didn't play an instrument, or who didn't support his show in that elementary school actually got the same or better grades as students who did.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Got a group of attorneys to write a letter to the school explaining the law to them. Hopefully this will yield results.
Well done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: They have "postponed" the opera. Everyone is shocked, despite knowing for 5 months what they were doing was wrong. The principal is "shocked" despite him knowing how illegal it was, and saying he wasn't going to touch it only because it would make him "unpopular".
Sounds like you got the result you were looking for. Congrats. For what it's worth, I shared your distaste for what was occurring, and I applaud you for having the guts and maturity to act on that. A lot of times its easier to just turn a blind eye, but that breeds apathy.
Yep, now on to a school production and the first amendment part 2- Death Threat addition. Also if you are interested in searching it it is Willoughby South Opera. I changed some people to female from male in my original post, but you can understand why I tried to prevent an exact match if someone from my school came across this thread. But that is all under the bridge now. If you would like to help, feel free to comment on Facebook or twitter, the students are using #WeAreMartol on twitter.
Good for you. This lady will probably never try to create something again, as you've worked so hard to crush her dream. I'm sure the kids who helped with it were entirely forced and had no choice or say. Live inside the box, people! Don't venture out of it, somebody will take offense!
I don't support anyone who is issuing you death threats: those are not appropriate. But your actions are disgusting to me. You get a huge thumbs down from me, and you are clearly somebody I'd never like to meet.
timetowaste85 wrote: Good for you. This lady will probably never try to create something again, as you've worked so hard to crush her dream. I'm sure the kids who helped with it were entirely forced and had no choice or say. Live inside the box, people! Don't venture out of it, somebody will take offense!
If she's so fragile an artist that saying "you can't break the law to create your art" is enough to permanently destroy her creative efforts then she wasn't much of an artist in the first place. If this is such an important dream to her then she's perfectly capable of doing it outside of public schools where it would be perfectly legal.
But your actions are disgusting to me. You get a huge thumbs down from me, and you are clearly somebody I'd never like to meet.
Yeah, it's so disgusting to expect people to follow the law instead of deciding that their religion puts them above it. How dare anyone try to enforce the law instead of saying "it's ok, you really want to break the law so I shouldn't crush your dreams".
Go read the messages on Facebook. Timetowaste85, see the glorious soldiers of your side, clad in all there grammarless glory. Don't be one of them. Also, I told you that the choir director is male indirectly in my last post. Please bother to read fully before you disapprove of me as a human being.
Oh, and half the kids bullied me after I had the NERVE to say one bad thing about papa choir director's actions. I lost about 75
Percent of my secondary friends to them spreading lies about me. So forgive me for not being sympathetic.
You were told at the beginning of the thread, when you asked for thoughts, to pick your battles. If you wanted this fight, you should have been prepared for the outcome that you'd lose a lot of friends.
My only sympathy towards you are the threats against you. You don't deserve that. Nobody does. But that doesn't mean you don't deserve the other consequences. You wanna start a crusade against something that has a lot of support? Prepare to lose a lot for everything you gain. You picked the battle, enjoy everything that goes with it.
timetowaste85 wrote: Good for you. This lady will probably never try to create something again, as you've worked so hard to crush her dream. I'm sure the kids who helped with it were entirely forced and had no choice or say. Live inside the box, people! Don't venture out of it, somebody will take offense!
Do you have any idea what it is like to be part of an excluded minority? If her dreams were to use her government position to portray one religion favorably to all her students, then her dreams deserved to get crushed. It was a blatant misuse of her power, and it is very painful to experience such a thing from the student's perspective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: You were told at the beginning of the thread, when you asked for thoughts, to pick your battles. If you wanted this fight, you should have been prepared for the outcome that you'd lose a lot of friends.
My only sympathy towards you are the threats against you. You don't deserve that. Nobody does. But that doesn't mean you don't deserve the other consequences. You wanna start a crusade against something that has a lot of support? Prepare to lose a lot for everything you gain. You picked the battle, enjoy everything that goes with it.
Seriously? You are mad at him for not taking it like a bitch/chump/victim? Are the only options suffer injustice or suffer bullying? That outlook is why the world is such a miserable place.
timetowaste85 wrote: You were told at the beginning of the thread, when you asked for thoughts, to pick your battles. If you wanted this fight, you should have been prepared for the outcome that you'd lose a lot of friends.
The fact that people predicted that he might lose friends over this or have to deal with s doesn't mean that it's right for people to act that way.
But that doesn't mean you don't deserve the other consequences.
Yeah, how dare he expect people to follow the law. He absolutely deserves to be abused for not just letting them get away with it. /sarcasm
1. Was anyone forced to participate in the performance?
2. Was anyone forced to attend the performance?
1. It was a class. He never said, " if you don't feel like participating, you can just ask me for something else to do." And the way everyone in the class operates is like "one big family" so lots of peer pressure and fear of becoming an outcast. We started to learn the songs in September, by the time he introduced he dialog everyone had already invested in it for several months.
2. No.
Neither of these matter though, it is still illegal.
Also, 4000 dollars were given in grants or fundraised by the students.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It was a class. He never said, " if you don't feel like participating, you can just ask me for something else to do." And the way everyone in the class operates is like "one big family" so lots of peer pressure and fear of becoming an outcast. We started to learn the songs in September, by the time he introduced he dialog everyone had already invested in it for several months.
One of my friends was able to get the gospel choir group at our high school removed because we were forced to hear them perform at a pep rally. We fought it by hiring a lawyer - they won some big competition and assumed the everyone in the school supports the message of the songs they sing. It's sickening. Keep fighting! Also, we were able to have our graduation ceremony moved from the baptist church to the football/track field because forcing other people into a church is offensive to many.
Yeesh. It's actually against some people's religions to set foot in other religion's houses of worship. That's even worse than the singing or the play.
It's amazing how many schools don't know what's in the constitution, despite teaching it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeesh. It's actually against some people's religions to set foot in other religion's houses of worship. That's even worse than the singing or the play.
.
I Wasnt Aware the football field was a place of worhship huh.
And, I honestly think they think they are too big to fail kinda thing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yeesh. It's actually against some people's religions to set foot in other religion's houses of worship. That's even worse than the singing or the play.
.
I Wasnt Aware the football field was a place of worhship huh.
And, I honestly think they think they are too big to fail kinda thing.
Luchenister said the opera is about a sinner who is contacted by a messenger from God, then is tempted deeper into sin. He called it a religious opera and said public school teachers have no business promoting religion. He acknowledged he had not read the opera and relied on the complainant's description.
Emphasis mine.
So basically they were willing to send a letter and threaten litigation based on an opera they hadn't actually read. Sounds legit.
Hordini wrote: If I was a student who had invested a significant amount of time and energy working on a production and someone got it shut down because they were bothered by it featuring some generic religious imagery in Latin, I would be furious.
It's not just the contents, it's the fact that it's a teacher blatantly endorsing a particular religion and getting students to participate in it.
What particular religion is the teacher endorsing?
timetowaste85 wrote: Good for you. This lady will probably never try to create something again, as you've worked so hard to crush her dream. I'm sure the kids who helped with it were entirely forced and had no choice or say. Live inside the box, people! Don't venture out of it, somebody will take offense!
I don't support anyone who is issuing you death threats: those are not appropriate. But your actions are disgusting to me. You get a huge thumbs down from me, and you are clearly somebody I'd never like to meet.
Not a fan of constitutional law then are you or seperation of church and state, and even if the law finds neither of those things have been violated (which they might be), you're not one for standing up for what you believe in if you think your rights are being violated ?
Dude. C'mon. I read a lot of what you write on here. You're more sensible than this.
This is a really brave kid standing up for what he or she believes in and doing it in a very well thought out rationale way. Even if you dont' fall on the secular / non-secular side of the equation, you have to applaud the maturity with which he/she is proceeding. Most kids i know would make fun of it, probably text a lot, and then go find a "better" way to spend their time.
I applaud this kid. If no one ever had the sack to stand up for what they believe in and go the distance, then rights would get trampled.
1. Was anyone forced to participate in the performance?
2. Was anyone forced to attend the performance?
I have a question to you: Does any of that matter when the law explicitly states you can't, as a member of staff, promote your religion in schools?
The answer is "No", SilverMK2.
That said... while i completely support the OP taking the tact he did, and i think the case would have legs if it hit court, there's enough room for doubt here that there's at least a case, imho.
But no, forced participation is not a requirement. Promotion is enough, even if that promotion is in something elective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: How valid are such questions in the context of a typical school activity?
Completely valid. Compulsion has been a hotly debated topic over things like this.
Do a google search about the legal history of the Pledge of Allegiance and cases fought in court over it for some good examples.
I still want to know why using vague, generic religious terms in a play is enough to get it shut down without anyone having actually read the play. Which religion is this supposed to be in support of again? Just because the script contains words like lord, sinner, temptation, and heaven, that doesn't indicate support for any particular religion.
skyth wrote: Those are obviously intended to promote Christianity.
Please explain to me how they are obviously intended to promote Christianity. None of those terms are used exclusively by Christianity. I'm beginning to get the impression that the people who have a problem with this just don't know enough about other religions, and are making assumptions based on their lack of knowledge and experience, in addition to not actually reading the play.
I don't think it actually has to promote a specific religion to violate the 1st amendment, just religion in general is enough. Not positive though, guess it would depend on the interpretation.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't think it actually has to promote a specific religion to violate the 1st amendment, just religion in general is enough. Not positive though, guess it would depend on the interpretation.
I don't think using religious words and generic religious imagery violates the 1st Amendment. And if it's a non-specific religion, how can you promote a religion that doesn't even exist? Especially if it is part of a work of art. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. You can discuss and show things that include religious subject matter without that entailing a promotion of one religion over another.
It certainly promotes not-Buddhism, not-Wicca, not-Judaism, and several other not-religions. What may be vague and generic to you is completely out of the normal theological discourse in other religions. The terms and themes in this play are very clearly Christian in origin. Just because you personally are surrounded by the terms doesn't mean they are independent of any one religion or family of religions.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It certainly promotes not-Buddhism, not-Wicca, not-Judaism, and several other not-religions. What may be vague and generic to you is completely out of the normal theological discourse in other religions. The terms and themes in this play are very clearly Christian in origin. Just because you personally are surrounded by the terms doesn't mean they are independent of any one religion or family of religions.
You might want to learn a bit about other religions, because you are completely wrong. Just because you think those terms are Christian because that is all you are vaguely familiar with doesn't mean you are right. I'm not claiming that those terms are independent of Christianity or Abrahamic religions because I'm surrounded by them, I'm claiming that because I actually have some knowledge and experience with other religions - something that many people in this thread very obviously lack.
I think there is a difference there. The universities did not create the piece and I think it is lighter on the religious aspects and more about cultural history.
skyth wrote: I think there is a difference there. The universities did not create the piece and I think it is lighter on the religious aspects and more about cultural history.
Are you kidding me? What does it matter if they created the piece or not? Writers in Residence with universities write plays and stories and books all the time. Plenty of public high schools and universities have creative writing classes and drama workshops where they create original works and perform them.
And Jesus Christ Superstar is based on the life of Jesus as presented in the gospels. It adds some things, but that doesn't change that its biggest single piece of source material are the gospels from the Bible.
Hordini wrote:How does it violate the 1st Amendment? Because it's a piece of art that deals with religious themes?
Hordini wrote:
And Jesus Christ Superstar is based on the life of Jesus as presented in the gospels. It adds some things, but that doesn't change that its biggest single piece of source material are the gospels from the Bible.
I'd say you've just about answered your own question there. I'm not particulary up on JCS (i saw the last 15 minutes of the movie, meh) but was it written by an american school teacher and performed inside an american school? Now if the class had been elective bible studies, i wouldn't see a problem with the performance.
Hordini wrote:How does it violate the 1st Amendment? Because it's a piece of art that deals with religious themes?
Hordini wrote: And Jesus Christ Superstar is based on the life of Jesus as presented in the gospels. It adds some things, but that doesn't change that its biggest single piece of source material are the gospels from the Bible.
I'd say you've just about answered your own question there. I'm not particulary up on JCS (i saw the last 15 minutes of the movie, meh) but was it written by an american school teacher and performed inside an american school? Now if the class had been elective bible studies, i wouldn't see a problem with the performance.
I think you might have missed the point where I mentioned that JCS has been performed multiple times at publicly funded universities in the US.
And the class that this play was to be performed in was indeed an elective course.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just looked it up, but it looks like JCS has also been performed at multiple public high schools in the US as well.
It very well might have been, that doesn't make it right. Not that i have a particular objection to religious works in the public school system, but if you're going to have a separation of church and state, that means certain things are off limits. It's still illegal to hold public viewings of 'the life of brian' in parts of england and they do it anyways - it highlights a failing of the system, but it still isn't legally 'right' to do so.
Torga_DW wrote: It very well might have been, that doesn't make it right. Not that i have a particular objection to religious works in the public school system, but if you're going to have a separation of church and state, that means certain things are off limits. It's still illegal to hold public viewings of 'the life of brian' in parts of england and they do it anyways - it highlights a failing of the system, but it still isn't legally 'right' to do so.
Of course it's right, that's the whole point of having freedom of religion. I'm not sure you understand what separation of church and state actually entails in the US. It's wrong to not let them perform it - especially when it's a work of art, and in this case is basically just a some generic symbolism in Latin. That's the whole point of art - you view it if you wish and then come to your own conclusion. If it's off limits to show the Life of Brian in public in the UK that's their own problem. That would never fly here.
Except this particular piece of 'art' is clearly christian and there is no representative 'art' being created for the other denominations. That's why religion is (supposed to be) kept out of schools - if the product (be it art or teaching or whathaveyou) is slanted towards one religion, it is biased. I think too much emphasis is being placed on this play being 'art', when it looks (from what i've read) to be more of a sly way to teach christianity where it's not meant to be taught.
Of course we all have our own opinions, and due process is needed here to sort it out. The play was shut down by a letter from a lawyer, i wonder if it dies here or if things progress?
Torga_DW wrote: Except this particular piece of 'art' is clearly christian and there is no representative 'art' being created for the other denominations. That's why religion is (supposed to be) kept out of schools - if the product (be it art or teaching or whathaveyou) is slanted towards one religion, it is biased.
Actually, that is not what the establishment clause calls for... People do not check their free speech at the door of a school and there is no expectation of a religion ban. Godspell and Superstar are done regularly at public schools and been upheld in courts as perfectly legal as performing a play with religious themes or about a particular religion is not establishing or practicing said religion. There is also no expectation of 'balance' either. The high School down the street from me is doing Godspell and I live in the bluest of the Blue states which is second only to California in our progressive liberal politics. I mean we have sued Native American Mascots out of our district so there are no shortage if litigating parents in this district. Godspell is straight up Jesus and has Hymns in it. I would have thought we would have had a major ruling banning Godspell and other religious plays from school by now if they had a leg to stand on but for the most part, none of it rises to establishment clause.
I am curious what the District's lawyers will say once they cross their Ts and dot their Is. Especially when the complaint letter hasn't seen the content... Considering it sounds tame compared to Godspell, It really makes me wonder if they have a case or not. But it is California and maybe this is a Supreme court case!
Regardless, there is still a shoe to drop, either they reschedule and move forward and I guess lead to a lawsuit or they stop it.
The only Remedy for a Godspell case I was able to find was:
1) the challenger had not bothered to read the play script.
2) accommodations were made for the two drama students who had issues by allowing them parts in another play.
I am not sure this has made it to real court anywhere, so if someone in California wants to run it up the flagpole and set case law, more power to them. "Godspell" is the 21st most-produced play in American high schools right now, so you can see how common it is.
Is an art appreciation class not supposed to cover things like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Or the Madonna of Bruges? Or similar Renaissance works because they have religious themes? Or any of the many works of art which were funded by churches (like icons from Russian monasteries)?
How about the public funding that in part sponsored Serrano's jar of piss with the crucifix in it? Was that okay?
Is an art appreciation class not supposed to cover things like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Or the Madonna of Bruges? Or similar Renaissance works because they have religious themes? Or any of the many works of art which were funded by churches (like icons from Russian monasteries)?
It's very easy:
1) There's a difference between studying a religious work in an academic context and endorsing that work. You can show an art class a piece of art with a religious theme, explain what the art is referring to, and comment on how it fits into the society it was created in. You just can't add "and you need to accept the artist's message and be saved" or "but the artist was a gullible moron for believing any of those fairy tales" to the lesson. The teacher in the OP seems to be crossing that line and making it about their personal beliefs instead of a neutral and detached academic study of the subject.
2) There's also a difference between studying a work with legitimate historical or cultural significance and presenting a religious work without that academic value. Any legitimate class in art history is going to have to cover religious works because you can't understand art history in general or specific later works without them. Any legitimate class in literature is going to have to make at least some reference to Christianity because you can't understand major works properly without knowing what their religious symbolism is referring to. But the situation in the OP involves a teacher creating their own work. There's no historical significance behind it, and the students would not have any gaps in their education if it was omitted.
How about the public funding that in part sponsored Serrano's jar of piss with the crucifix in it? Was that okay?
Maybe? It's quite easy to say "no funding for controversial art with religious messages", but do we really want to have government-supported art consist of nothing but bland still lifes and landscapes? It's a complicated subject with no clear answer. However, it's one that has very little to do with religion in schools. The reason why separation of church and state is so important here isn't just a question of where tax money is going, it's about the very unequal balance of power in a school environment. A teacher is in a position of power over their students, so we have to be especially careful to make sure that they aren't abusing that position and pressuring students into certain religious acts/beliefs. That doesn't exist in the case of the controversial work of art, if you don't like it you're entirely free to ignore it or even harshly criticize it without fearing punishment for your refusal to comply.
How is acting in a play or an opera in a drama class the same as being pressured into certain religious acts/beliefs?
The teacher is not adding "and you need to accept the artist's message and be saved" or "but the artist was a gullible moron for believing any of those fairy tales" to the lesson. I have no idea how you are getting that from the original post.
Hordini wrote: How is acting in a play or an opera in a drama class the same as being pressured into certain religious acts/beliefs?
Because the play is pretty clearly a statement of the teacher's personal religious beliefs?
The teacher is not adding "and you need to accept the artist's message and be saved" or "but the artist was a gullible moron for believing any of those fairy tales" to the lesson. I have no idea how you are getting that from the original post.
They're adding it because, unlike discussing an important historical work, the play is their own creation and reflects their own religious beliefs. It's impossible to take that neutral and detached position when the teacher is fairly obviously saying "this is what I believe, let's perform it".
Hordini wrote: How is acting in a play or an opera in a drama class the same as being pressured into certain religious acts/beliefs?
The teacher is not adding "and you need to accept the artist's message and be saved" or "but the artist was a gullible moron for believing any of those fairy tales" to the lesson. I have no idea how you are getting that from the original post.
And since "Godspell" doesn't seem to be held to these educational abstracts, how old does a piece of art need to be until it has cultural relevance? 1971 has relevance but 2014 does not? Does a play with religious material or themes need to be 10 years to be considered art enough to be experienced?
Universally, plays with religious themes have never been legally found to be establishing religion, and censoring them has been restricting free speech as people are not forced to check their religion at the door in public schools. That can change with a court case potentially, but it hasn't yet.
I really can't imagine this play is somehow more "Christian" than the flat out life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ in Godspell and the for real hymns in it. And considering the OPs school actually did Godspell last year and it was fine, I really don't think this will go anywhere when the school board has its lawyers go over it.
nkelsch wrote: And since "Godspell" doesn't seem to be held to these educational abstracts, how old does a piece of art need to be until it has cultural relevance? 1971 has relevance but 2014 does not? Does a play with religious material or themes need to be 10 years to be considered art enough to be experienced?
Why is time the only relevant fact? Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar are both relevant culturally because they are commercially successful plays that a theater student could reasonably be expected to be familiar with. If a play from 2015 won a bunch of awards and made tons of money there would be a reasonable argument that it's a significant work and performing/studying it has a legitimate academic purpose. But the same is not true of the teacher's personal work. Nobody outside of the class had ever heard of it, and nothing would be missing from the students' education if they omit it.
Also, the fact that a court case might have found that Godspell was permitted doesn't necessarily mean that it was the right decision.
And considering the OPs school actually did Godspell last year and it was fine, I really don't think this will go anywhere when the school board has its lawyers go over it.
IMO this actually weakens the case that it's a legitimate thing to do. If the same teacher is doing consecutive Christian plays then that pretty strongly suggests that it's about promoting their Christian beliefs, not doing a balanced selection of plays that just happens to include occasional ones with religious themes (something that's almost inevitable when historically significant and commercially successful plays have involved religion).
Hordini wrote: How can you know that without both actually reading the play and knowing the artist who created it?
Obviously we can't have absolute proof unless someone is stupid enough to say "I'm going to bring these kids to Jesus". But why else would the teacher do it this way? Are there really that many non-Christian teachers writing thinly-veiled Christian stories for their classes?
Hordini wrote: How can you know that without both actually reading the play and knowing the artist who created it?
Obviously we can't have absolute proof unless someone is stupid enough to say "I'm going to bring these kids to Jesus". But why else would the teacher do it this way? Are there really that many non-Christian teachers writing thinly-veiled Christian stories for their classes?
How do you know it's Christian? From what little we know of it, it is so generic that it could be interpreted to represent a story from a variety of different religions. There is nothing in it about Jesus, whatsoever.
Hordini wrote: How do you know it's Christian? From what little we know of it, it is so generic that it could be interpreted to represent a story from a variety of different religions. There is nothing in it about Jesus, whatsoever.
If you honestly can't see how the play is using Christian themes and beliefs then I really don't know what to say.
Hordini wrote: How do you know it's Christian? From what little we know of it, it is so generic that it could be interpreted to represent a story from a variety of different religions. There is nothing in it about Jesus, whatsoever.
If you honestly can't see how the play is using Christian themes and beliefs then I really don't know what to say.
I can see how the play could be said to be using Christian themes and beliefs. I can also see how the play could be using Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, new age, and other beliefs as well. But that's kind of the point of art, isn't it? The viewer gets to interpret it as they see fit. But if you censor it, it robs the viewer of their right to do that. And I'm not really sure why anyone would really want to do that.
Hordini wrote: I can also see how the play could be using Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, new age, and other beliefs as well.
That doesn't really change anything. A Hindu religious play is just as inappropriate as a Christian one.
But if you censor it, it robs the viewer of their right to do that.
It's not really censorship because the creator is free to make their art somewhere that isn't a public school and the government won't do anything to stop them. The only thing they don't get is the ability to use their students and school resources to produce it.
And I'm not really sure why anyone would really want to do that.
Because there's a huge power difference between a teacher and a student, so we should err on the side of caution. If you're going to be a representative of the state and be in a position of power over people then you temporarily give up some of the rights a private citizen normally has.
Is an art appreciation class not supposed to cover things like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Or the Madonna of Bruges? Or similar Renaissance works because they have religious themes? Or any of the many works of art which were funded by churches (like icons from Russian monasteries)?
How about the public funding that in part sponsored Serrano's jar of piss with the crucifix in it? Was that okay?
The case has merits on both sides. Let me just say that.
Having said that: a huge problem i can't get over is the fact that a teacher (paid with taxpayer money) has created a religiously overtoned production with taxpayer funded money.
Is that promotion ? I don't know. Neither does anyone else in this thread for sure. We can all have opinions, but I think that's a REALLY good legal question.
Whether or not the tenets of the production are veiled analogy for christianity is part of the debatable merits of the case. I happen to think it is, but i also happen to recognize there's enough vagueness to merit discussion / legal debate on it.
It's an interesting case. I sort of hope the school decides to stand their ground if for no other reason than i want to see how it turns out. It's all but guaranteed to die exactly where it is ; legal action insinuated, school dept. wants no part of it, cease and desist.
Torga_DW wrote: Except this particular piece of 'art' is clearly christian and there is no representative 'art' being created for the other denominations. That's why religion is (supposed to be) kept out of schools - if the product (be it art or teaching or whathaveyou) is slanted towards one religion, it is biased. I think too much emphasis is being placed on this play being 'art', when it looks (from what i've read) to be more of a sly way to teach christianity where it's not meant to be taught.
Of course we all have our own opinions, and due process is needed here to sort it out. The play was shut down by a letter from a lawyer, i wonder if it dies here or if things progress?
The actual Constitution protects religion from government. It doesn't say what you think it says.
Hordini wrote: How is acting in a play or an opera in a drama class the same as being pressured into certain religious acts/beliefs?
Because the play is pretty clearly a statement of the teacher's personal religious beliefs?.
Each of my examples was a statement of the artists' personal religious beliefs. To think you could legitimately teach about those works of art without bringing in the religious can cultural context they were created in is silly in my opinion. So, either Religion MUST STAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM, or some of you are drawing lines without a lot of legitimate reasons.
Is an art appreciation class not supposed to cover things like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Or the Madonna of Bruges? Or similar Renaissance works because they have religious themes? Or any of the many works of art which were funded by churches (like icons from Russian monasteries)?
How about the public funding that in part sponsored Serrano's jar of piss with the crucifix in it? Was that okay?
The case has merits on both sides. Let me just say that.
Having said that: a huge problem i can't get over is the fact that a teacher (paid with taxpayer money) has created a religiously overtoned production with taxpayer funded money.
Is that promotion ? I don't know. Neither does anyone else in this thread for sure. We can all have opinions, but I think that's a REALLY good legal question.
Whether or not the tenets of the production are veiled analogy for christianity is part of the debatable merits of the case. I happen to think it is, but i also happen to recognize there's enough vagueness to merit discussion / legal debate on it.
It's an interesting case. I sort of hope the school decides to stand their ground if for no other reason than i want to see how it turns out. It's all but guaranteed to die exactly where it is ; legal action insinuated, school dept. wants no part of it, cease and desist.
Serano's PissChirist also was "a religiously overtoned production with taxpayer funded money. "
How about the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday? Meaning we spend a gak ton of tax payer money every year to allow federal employees to take the day off without it counting against their leave time. Many state and local governments do the same thing.
To be fair though Christmas was a pagan holiday long before Christianity coopted it. And for millions of atheists and people of other religions it is just a holiday, often with presents given and received, but not always.
CptJake wrote: Each of my examples was a statement of the artists' personal religious beliefs. To think you could legitimately teach about those works of art without bringing in the religious can cultural context they were created in is silly in my opinion. So, either Religion MUST STAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM, or some of you are drawing lines without a lot of legitimate reasons.
I think you missed the point there. The issue is not the artist's personal religious beliefs, it's the teacher's beliefs. You can discuss the beliefs of the artist and the context the art was created in without endorsing or criticizing those beliefs. There is no obligation to pretend that religion doesn't exist, as long as you avoid a situation where the teacher (who has a lot of power over their students) is influencing the students to believe (or not believe) something.
The reason it's a conflict in this case is that the artist and the teacher are the same person. You can't have that neutral and detached point of view because anything you say or imply about the artist's beliefs is automatically said and implied about the teacher's beliefs.
How about the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday? Meaning we spend a gak ton of tax payer money every year to allow federal employees to take the day off without it counting against their leave time. Many state and local governments do the same thing.
Christmas isn't really a religious holiday anymore. Sure, people do religious things, but that's now outweighed by all the secular stuff. So the federal government has two options:
1) Pretend that there's no holiday and deal with the fact that virtually everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, is going to ask for time off and be incredibly resentful if they don't get it (if they even bother showing up for work at all instead of being "sick"). In this case hardly any work is going to be done even if the government is "open" on paper.
2) Acknowledge that nothing is going to happen that day and close everything.
I think it's pretty obvious that #2 is the right choice, and it has nothing to do with the government endorsing Christianity and its holidays.
CptJake wrote: Each of my examples was a statement of the artists' personal religious beliefs. To think you could legitimately teach about those works of art without bringing in the religious can cultural context they were created in is silly in my opinion. So, either Religion MUST STAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM, or some of you are drawing lines without a lot of legitimate reasons.
I think you missed the point there. The issue is not the artist's personal religious beliefs, it's the teacher's beliefs. You can discuss the beliefs of the artist and the context the art was created in without endorsing or criticizing those beliefs. There is no obligation to pretend that religion doesn't exist, as long as you avoid a situation where the teacher (who has a lot of power over their students) is influencing the students to believe (or not believe) something.
The reason it's a conflict in this case is that the artist and the teacher are the same person. You can't have that neutral and detached point of view because anything you say or imply about the artist's beliefs is automatically said and implied about the teacher's beliefs.
Yes, you can still have a neutral and detached point of view. The level of comfort might vary, depending on the level of professionalism of the teacher, but none of that has anything to do with the 1st Amendment and it doesn't preclude being able to criticize the piece of art. And criticizing a piece of art isn't necessarily the same as criticizing the artists beliefs.
There is no indication in anything I read the teacher was pushing her religion onto the students. And any discussion of the artists beliefs would indeed be a discussion of the teacher's beliefs in this case, but again, there is no indication that was going on that I read. What I recall reading is they were producing the play written by the teacher, that had some pretty generic religious themes. And since those themes don't seem to be pushed on anyone, I don't see this piece of art any differently than any of the example I cited.
The identity of the artist should make zero difference from a 1st amendment perspective. If religiously themed art is acceptable in public schools, and it would seem most of you agree it is, why get in a tizzy over this piece of art which has a lot less religious theme than many you seemingly approve of?
There is a clear difference between objective analysis and criticism of an artwork from a third party and being involved in the creation of an artwork from a first party perspective.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a clear difference between objective analysis and criticism of an artwork from a third party and being involved in the creation of an artwork from a first party perspective.
And thankfully all of which are protected by the 1st Amendment.
The best undergrad class I ever took was Literature of the Bible taught by a nun. It didn't really look at the religious aspects of the bible, but rather focused on the formal techniques. In my final essay, I made the argument that one of the central themes seemed to forewarn Lord Acton's premise of power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely (see Moses, Joshua, Etc) and that ultimately God, being absolutely powerful, was absolutely corrupt (a half baked argument, admittedly). Her comment on my essay was "although I do not agree with a single point you make, morally. I cannot deny that you logically make the argument defined by your parameters" and gave me an A. She was one of the best teachers I ever had. Not because of the grade but because of what her comment taught me.
Hordini wrote: And thankfully all of which are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Teachers do not have 1st amendment protection while doing their job. The actual 1st amendment issue is protecting the students' rights to remain free of government-endorsed religious beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: There is no indication in anything I read the teacher was pushing her religion onto the students.
You don't have to actively say "believe this or get an F" to be pushing a belief. For example, a student might be reluctant to criticize the religious elements of the play because they know they'd be simultaneously criticizing the teacher's beliefs, and might face retaliation from the teacher in the future.
The identity of the artist should make zero difference from a 1st amendment perspective.
It absolutely should because the whole point is the difference between legitimate academic discussion of religious material and government endorsement of religion. You only avoid endorsement of religious beliefs by keeping the teacher's beliefs entirely separate from the discussion. You can't do that when the teacher is the creator of the religious material.
If religiously themed art is acceptable in public schools, and it would seem most of you agree it is, why get in a tizzy over this piece of art which has a lot less religious theme than many you seemingly approve of?
Because it's inherently violating the principle of having the teacher present the material from a neutral and detached perspective, without including their own beliefs at all. The issue is not how many times "Jesus" is said in the material, it's whether or not it creates a situation where the teacher is using their class as an opportunity to promote their own beliefs.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a clear difference between objective analysis and criticism of an artwork from a third party and being involved in the creation of an artwork from a first party perspective.
And thankfully all of which are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Outside of public schools as defined by the legislation around separation of church and state.
The first amendment does not allow a public school teacher to promote his or her individual religious beliefs in the classroom.
OP, I just want to say I respect you immensely for standing up for your rights. No matter how "small" it may seem to others, every instance is important. It's the little "lost battles" where people just shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" that starts eroding freedoms.
Anyways, good on you op! I'm sorry to hear that some idiots out there are busy being donkey-caves. Hope this turns out well for you, and you kinda know who some of your true friends are, the ones who'll stick with you through thick and thin.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a clear difference between objective analysis and criticism of an artwork from a third party and being involved in the creation of an artwork from a first party perspective.
And thankfully all of which are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Outside of public schools as defined by the legislation around separation of church and state.
The first amendment does not allow a public school teacher to promote his or her individual religious beliefs in the classroom.
This.
I stopped participating in the thread as it basically came down to "my opinion" vs. "objective application of law" (and i dont' mean my as me, personally). Opinions are not swayed on internet forums.
Who the person doing the creating is matters. Where they do it matters. Who is paying for it matters. The context of the "art" or "production" (quotes due to weighted terms) matters. All of it matters.
It's funny how everyone thinks I hate religion now. And that the are calling it a compromise as oppose to them actually following the law. By the way, the full script is up for viewing, I saw it at cleveland.com
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It's funny how everyone thinks I hate religion now. And that the are calling it a compromise as oppose to them actually following the law. By the way, the full script is up for viewing, I saw it at cleveland.com
Why are you so sure that they are not following the law?
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It's funny how everyone thinks I hate religion now. And that the are calling it a compromise as oppose to them actually following the law. By the way, the full script is up for viewing, I saw it at cleveland.com
Why are you so sure that they are not following the law?
And what is the compromise?
Stephen L. Thompson, superintendent of Willoughby-Eastlake Schools, announced last week that the show could go on, but off campus and without the support of the school system.
supporters of the opera have found a venue in Lake County
So since this is an area of a lack of case law, sounds like neither side felt like testing it on this issue.
I agree with almost all of the responses... Claim had minimal substance and this in no way was promoting or establishing religion, especially Christianity... Reads way closer to Orpheus and other Greek Myths to me. Not even close to establishing christianity compared to the dozens of other plays... This was never going to hold up in court, especially since the claim was filed without evidence or seeing the script.
Ted Diadiun, editorial writer:
It's sad that we have allowed ourselves to reach the point where the Americans United for Poking Their Noses into Other Americans' Business can use one curmudgeon's complaint to terrorize a school into disassociating itself from such a creative and stimulating enterprise. Trying to squelch this play in no way advances the educational process or protects any student, and is miles from what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the First Amendment.
Peter Krouse, editorial writer, Northeast Ohio Media Group:
Clearly this is the promise of being "saved" through grace, only the names of God, Jesus and the Devil have been exchanged for Kurios, Charis and Peirasmos. But so what? Whether you regard this tenet of Christianity as myth, literal truth or somewhere in between, it undeniably exemplifies man's natural, never-ending search for answers through faith. To eliminate anything faith-based, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., from the learning process distorts reality. Performing this opera, even in a public building, does not violate separation of church and state unless there is actual religious promotion going on. It is art that can be used to discuss religion in general.
Kevin O'Brien, deputy editorial page editor, The Plain Dealer:
Nothing in "I Am Martol" is explicitly Christian. In fact, the notion that a force greater than ourselves is involved in our lives long predates Christianity and is common to many cultures. That makes this complaint even more ridiculous than the usual foolishness from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
Kevin O'Brien and I are on the same page. It's scarcely believable that this dramatic work could arouse such a controversy.
Christopher Evans, editorial writer, Northeast Ohio Media Group:
The Americans United for Separation of Church and State doth protest too much, methinks. "I Am Martol" is a classic existential teen melodrama. Think "Waiting for Godot" meets "Smells Like Teen Spirit."
Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director, Northeast Ohio Media Group:
Shame on Americans United for Separation of Church and State for initiating their action without investigating the substance of the opera. That's unfair to everyone involved. But a reading of the script, frankly, reveals an opera almost entirely derived from the Christian story of salvation and resurrection through the Lord -- a fine subject for an opera, or a sermon, but not for a school production where those not of Christian belief might feel excluded or worse.
The one person who somewhat agreed shows the whole problem with this that the complaint was filed based on the unvetted word of someone with overreaching claims and giving false impressions.
I would have loved to see this go to court, I am pretty sure Americans United for Separation of Church and State is embarrassed and has lost credibility on backing this one without first vetting it. If they had a slam-dunk and the law actually behind them based upon the content, they would have moved forward more. This sounds like saving face to me. Next time don't exaggerate and provide your advocacy group all the information up front lest you be the boy who cried wolf.
Automatically Appended Next Post: After reflection... It actually makes me think it is written about "Jenny" from Forrest Gump.
Jenny has a hard life, Drugs, Alcohol, sex, and feels like there is no where to go, and no escape.
She runs into Forrest Gump in DC who says "Come Home Jennay..." And she sees an out but can't commit to it. So she goes on with activists and such and abandon's Gump.
She gets AIDS and when she gets sick she goes back to Georgia and Gump Comforts her, lets her live in comfort till she dies and then raises the AIDS baby.
Since everything can be an allegory for Jesus, Even Azland a Lion and Forest Gump... I suppose no story can be told in schools? They read Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe in Public School and there is more Jesus in Azland than in this play.
I don't even see SIN in this script... and it doesn't even show she is a Sinner... Her burden is ambiguous, it could be self-imposed, virtually moral, or even something like running a failed business or raising kids as a single mother. Whatever her 'burden' or 'imprisonment' could be all sorts of things, and fleeing it to focus on herself gets her killed but yet she can die happy.
Sorry... Not seeing establishment of Christianity in any way. Not even close.
Imagine if Jennie's name was a Latin for sinner(hermartolos, and a reference not a direct translation I know, but that is what he told us her name meant) And the plot of Forrest Gump was how Grace Gump made the heathen Jenny Sinner see the glory of god despite the influence of temptation. Did you read the script? You only quote from the other part of the article. And just because things are in Latin doesn't mean it is free game. If you believe that then este a gladius- apologies for my broken Latin.
Read the script. Grace actively pushes religion in it. The moral of the story can e summed up as Curios( the Christian god)=Good, Godless life=hedonistic sinner- which is the main character, if you read the script in the article you linked to.
Provide one instance of an actual overexaggeration in this thread and I will buy a hat and eat it.
One more thing- He wrote the script. And was writing it during school hours at times. If a teacher wrote Faust and made a class perform it what would happen?
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Imagine if Jennie's name was a Latin for sinner(hermartolos, and a reference not a direct translation I know, but that is what he told us her name meant) And the plot of Forrest Gump was how Grace Gump made the heathen Jenny Sinner see the glory of god despite the influence of temptation. Did you read the script? You only quote from the other part of the article. And just because things are in Latin doesn't mean it is free game. If you believe that then este a gladius- apologies for my broken Latin.
Read the script. Grace actively pushes religion in it. The moral of the story can e summed up as Curios( the Christian god)=Good, Godless life=hedonistic sinner- which is the main character, if you read the script in the article you linked to.
Provide one instance of an actual overexaggeration in this thread and I will buy a hat and eat it.
One more thing- He wrote the script. And was writing it during school hours at times. If a teacher wrote Faust and made a class perform it what would happen?
I read the script. Not a damn thing religious in it, or even remotely Christian. I see no reference to sin. Her imprissonment was abstract, and could have been duty, self inflicted, ignorance, literal, who knows... And someone basically says "you should live for yourself." Which could be someone telling someone who is wasting their life doing something they don't need to.
In the end, she lives for herself, and she ends up getting herself killed in some indirect way?
If anything, this exact plot was an episode of adventure time where Jermaine lived in a prison of his fathers duties and it was destroying his life, and his brother jake came over and said "hey, you don't have to do this, leave it behind and live your life" and in doing so, his families house burned down and everything in his life was destroyed... But in doing so, he was free, and finally happy even though it was all destroyed.
I didn't see anything about sin... And living for yourself and hastening your death doesn't at all have anything to do with the devil...
Maybe she was a cancer patient, and the doctor kept telling her to do more treatment, and the other guy had her say "take that last vacation and enjoy yourself" and she does and has an experience of her lifetime, and returns to the doctor to slip into death having been free from painful treatment and happy of a life fully lived instead of forever lost to treatment.
No god, no sinning, no devil, no Jesus. It is a story about someone choosing to "live" and while it frees her, it hastens her death, and she dies happy and supported when she thought she might be left to her own.
Myth, fable, art, whatever... This ain't Jesus or Christianity unless you add words which you are adding which are not there... Hence why they backed away from a legal challenge because they have no case.
You did yourself a disservice by not sharing this with the organization, because they lost credibility listening to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Live a life of pain or duty empty of self enrichment or die on your own terms while reaching for your own dreams... Sounds like a neat abstract social narrative. And not something taught by Christianity.
Yeah, let's ignore my entire argument. Google every word you don't understand and see what they mean. Oh my curios, it doesn't have any reference to hermartolos. Do more research if you actually want to leave the katakrima of ignorance.
Now, once you are done figuring out it is a primarily religious opera we can have an actual rudimentary discussion .
Also, provide a direct quote of an over exaggeration. I am getting a bit hungry.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Yeah, let's ignore my entire argument. Google every word you don't understand and see what they mean. Oh my curios, it doesn't have any reference to hermartolos. Do more research if you actually want to leave the katakrima of ignorance.
Yes, I am sure a child with an expansive high school education in literature from your quality public school knows all there is about the written word and religion.
Words existed before the bible, the bible didn't invent words...
And Latin for sinner is actually a different term. Peccator, So you keep claiming it is Latin for sinner when it clearly isn't. You stumbled onto some google links about a 14th century monk and a Greek bible site where it was being used to describe tax collectors and you got mad faced. Actually the Greek usage is more to represent someone who "neglects themselves at the sake of duty" which is what the tax collectors were doing in the bible. So nothing against "divine law" ie: sin against god. Being a Greek term referenced by Jesus in a version of the bible hardly makes it religious, especially when it sounds like he used the term in context. Greek and Latin existed years before Christianity...
There is a reason the organization you called backed off... Because you stretched the truth and misled them for reasons unknown.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Yeah, let's ignore my entire argument. Google every word you don't understand and see what they mean. Oh my curios, it doesn't have any reference to hermartolos. Do more research if you actually want to leave the katakrima of ignorance.
You do know that using words with religious connotation in a public school, such as sin or sinner, whether in Latin or in English or whatever, isn't illegal right? And the use of those words doesn't indicate an endorsement of religion, even if they are included in a textbook or a lecture or a piece of performance art.
Anyway, I'm very glad to hear that the performance will be able to go on, even if it is at a different venue.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Yeah, let's ignore my entire argument. Google every word you don't understand and see what they mean. Oh my curios, it doesn't have any reference to hermartolos. Do more research if you actually want to leave the katakrima of ignorance.
You do know that using words with religious connotation in a public school, such as sin or sinner, whether in Latin or in English or whatever, isn't illegal right? And the use of those words doesn't indicate an endorsement of religion, even if they are included in a textbook or a lecture or a piece of performance art.
Anyway, I'm very glad to hear that the performance will be able to go on, even if it is at a different venue.
In a vacuum, you're 100% correct. The use of sin, sinner, or other terms in school is fine.
However context is where we go from fine to questionable.... and the courts get to decide when questionable goes to impermissible. The context is what is ... or rather was, as its moot now ... at debate given the full context of the production, the venue, etc and other factors.
Likewise i'm happy the performance will go on too - not in the school.
Everyone wins. Teacher gets to show off her theatric creation, claimant is satisfied, no one goes through messy lawsuit. Seems like a win all around to me.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Yeah, let's ignore my entire argument. Google every word you don't understand and see what they mean. Oh my curios, it doesn't have any reference to hermartolos. Do more research if you actually want to leave the katakrima of ignorance.
Yes, I am sure a child with an expansive high school education in literature from your quality public school knows all there is about the written word and religion.
Words existed before the bible, the bible didn't invent words...
And Latin for sinner is actually a different term. Peccator, So you keep claiming it is Latin for sinner when it clearly isn't. You stumbled onto some google links about a 14th century monk and a Greek bible site where it was being used to describe tax collectors and you got mad faced. Actually the Greek usage is more to represent someone who "neglects themselves at the sake of duty" which is what the tax collectors were doing in the bible. So nothing against "divine law" ie: sin against god. Being a Greek term referenced by Jesus in a version of the bible hardly makes it religious, especially when it sounds like he used the term in context. Greek and Latin existed years before Christianity...
There is a reason the organization you called backed off... Because you stretched the truth and misled them for reasons unknown.
Yes, because the teacher stumbled across the 14 century monk and included him as the name of the main character, and he told us it meant sinner. Thats how you invalidate my argument. And the reason why"they backed off" is because the school's lawyers told the superintendent what was going on was wrong. Au had no reason to sue because the district lawyers understand the law. The students are allowed to perform without the government. That is free speech. Creating a religious atmosphere in a classroom isn't.
Does the teacher know Latin? He might be wrong, or it might be a very loose translation.
They might have simply backed off not because what was going on was wrong, but because they didn't think it was worth a court battle and there was a relatively easy solution that would satisfy both parties.
What do you consider creating a religious atmosphere in a classroom? You keep talking about people using these words and some symbolism and metaphors, but that on its own isn't enough to make it illegal. Is the teacher actually pushing religion on his students? Is he saying they need to believe the things he believes or what the characters in his play believes? Is he penalizing students who disagree with the messages in the play? Does he allow for others to come up with their own analysis and interpretation of the play and its symbolism and metaphors? Does he allow for discussion and criticism of the play and its themes?
Hordini wrote: Does the teacher know Latin? He might be wrong, or it might be a very loose translation.
Whether or not the teacher was wrong about the word it was still their intent that it mean "sinner".
Is the teacher actually pushing religion on his students? Is he saying they need to believe the things he believes or what the characters in his play believes? Is he penalizing students who disagree with the messages in the play? Does he allow for others to come up with their own analysis and interpretation of the play and its symbolism and metaphors? Does he allow for discussion and criticism of the play and its themes?
But the point here is that these things are a lot more difficult when it's the teacher's own work. Even if the teacher never explicitly says "this is what I believe and you need to accept Jesus" a non-Christian student might feel pressured to go along with it and not criticize anything because they're afraid of the consequences.
Hordini wrote: Does the teacher know Latin? He might be wrong, or it might be a very loose translation.
Whether or not the teacher was wrong about the word it was still their intent that it mean "sinner".
Is the teacher actually pushing religion on his students? Is he saying they need to believe the things he believes or what the characters in his play believes? Is he penalizing students who disagree with the messages in the play? Does he allow for others to come up with their own analysis and interpretation of the play and its symbolism and metaphors? Does he allow for discussion and criticism of the play and its themes?
But the point here is that these things are a lot more difficult when it's the teacher's own work. Even if the teacher never explicitly says "this is what I believe and you need to accept Jesus" a non-Christian student might feel pressured to go along with it and not criticize anything because they're afraid of the consequences.
Yes, but even if the teacher's intent was for it to mean sinner, that doesn't make it illegal either. Even if the name was just sinner in English, that would be pretty terrible from an artist's perspective, but not illegal or morally wrong.
And I don't see how it matters if a student could feel pressured by knowing something about what a teacher believes. There are a million ways that a student could potentially feel pressured to go along with what a teacher believes or not criticize it, and that doesn't make it illegal or an endorsement of something. The legality of something doesn't depend on whether or not you happen to have a student in your class who is a fragile snowflake and feels pressured when they are exposed to something outside of their frame of reference.
I am not responding to anyone who disagrees anymore- this Isn't out of ignorance, it is just that I am tired of all of this. Really am. Here are my final notes on this subject.
Facts- Lots of religious references
I talked to a lot of lawyers on this, not just from AU. They all said it was wrong when shown the script.
This was done in a class.
The alternate assignment was to listen to over 2 hours of music and write about each piece for each week of no opera, and had to be requested after multiple discussions.
He said if you have a question or criticism not to do so.
He said to stop spreading dissent in the choir after I mentioned it to a lawyer at a mock trial meeting and a student overheard
He said he wanted us to be emotionally invested in the story.
He mentioned his religion in context with the opera.
He turned a blind eye to students picking on me. Including singing one of his songs as a death threat toward me. Also, "I want to punch you in the throat" and"If I wouldn't get suspended I would hurt you so bad"
This was for school credit.
My thoughts
This was a religiously motivated piece. It made me feel like an outsider, and made other student bully me because of its message. Everyone was fine with me being an apatheist until this. Then when the dialog was rehearsed I suddenly became the hedonistic sinner. This thing made me have a depressive relapse. I used to enjoy going to school- it was an academic safe haven for me, a place where my religious views didn't matter. Now it is like someone burned a pentagram onto my forehead.
Why did you take the class? Serious question, I'm not trying to be snarky. Did you not know what the play was going to be beforehand? And were you not allowed to drop the class or switch to a different class when you found out?
Hordini wrote: Why did you take the class? Serious question, I'm not trying to be snarky. Did you not know what the play was going to be beforehand? And were you not allowed to drop the class or switch to a different class when you found out?
Why should the student have the obligation to drop the class? Avoiding that kind of situation is one of the reasons for enforcing separation of church and state!
Hordini wrote: Why did you take the class? Serious question, I'm not trying to be snarky. Did you not know what the play was going to be beforehand? And were you not allowed to drop the class or switch to a different class when you found out?
Why should the student have the obligation to drop the class? Avoiding that kind of situation is one of the reasons for enforcing separation of church and state!
Avoiding what kind of situation? A student being uncomfortable with certain subject matter?
I never said the student has the obligation to drop the class. I was asking whether or not it was an option.
If all of that actually happened, you have legitimate lawsuit for good old fashion harassment which would actually be a slam dunk... Why didn't you pursue that? I mean, all you would have to do is be telling the truth right? Most of your items could be corroborated by student and lawyers it seems if true.
You had a much stronger complaint with harassment, and hitting it head on would have given you credibility, now it will come off as possibly manufactured retaliation for a personal grudge after a failed legal attempt.
If you have actual evidence of such harassment at the hands of a faculty member, you should be pursuing legal action right now... That is the real issue here.
News reports said it was a "non graded class" and past establishment cases showed as long as students had access to an alternative lesson, the school was covered, especially in school plays with religious themes like Faust and god spell.
It wasn't a failed legal attempt. It is no longer sponsored by the school. The situation was rectified. And I didn't file a harassment suit because I would prefer to be the victim instead of my attackers facing an overly harsh reprisal. I don't like hurting people.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It wasn't a failed legal attempt. It is no longer sponsored by the school. The situation was rectified. And I didn't file a harassment suit because I would prefer to be the victim instead of my attackers facing an overly harsh reprisal. I don't like hurting people.
Yeah... THAT's why... When a loosely unconfirmed Jesus wearing glasses and a big nose appears in a play under an alias, you need legal action to protect you and do it in such a way which could probably get faculty fired and hurt hundreds of kids, but when the victim of direct, verifiable, and criminal harassment, you say "I am a martyr and don't want to cause harm to people or get people in trouble."
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It wasn't a failed legal attempt. It is no longer sponsored by the school. The situation was rectified. And I didn't file a harassment suit because I would prefer to be the victim instead of my attackers facing an overly harsh reprisal. I don't like hurting people.
Yeah... THAT's why... When a loosely unconfirmed Jesus wearing glasses and a big nose appears in a play under an alias, you need legal action to protect you and do it in such a way which could probably get faculty fired and hurt hundreds of kids, but when the victim of direct, verifiable, and criminal harassment, you say "I am a martyr and don't want to cause harm to people or get people in trouble."
Sorry, I don't buy it Don Quixote.
If he hadn't done it through legal means, how do you suggest he should've gone about protesting the issue? You'll have to forgive me if there's a lack of sympathy for the possibility of people losing their job due to breaking the law.
Looks like there is a crapton of religion being forced down peoples throats in that school: Atheism.
Atheist zampolits calling out unbelievers for having content that might espouse another faith.
Here is the rub, the formal separation of church and state is a festering ground for militant atheism to flourish unchallenged, because formal separation is often extended to mean formal cleansing and anything even remotely religious can be complained about with legal documents waved about.
We are talking about a Latin Choir. Most of those do have strong religious tones, the music might be very old, but if the singing is in Latin rather than English is doesn't matter really, instead it's classical art or modern art with a classical bent.
Would you deny schools using Handel's Messiah or Bach's Kantanewerks in music or arts class? Both have very clear religious tones of reference but are seen as works of classical music in their own right, and are listened to by people with no formal interest in the Christian faith. Most of the baroque era classical music is religious as is most Latin choral. In fact you would have to eliminate most western music prior to the late 18th century if you were to remeove all regious references. You would keep most of Mozarts work, and a lot of volksopera stuff from the time, but that would be about it.
Does the pursuit of 'reason' and 'separation of church and state' warrant airbrushing out half of the era of classical music from schools? Your society needs to decide that, but if they do then the 'reasoned' athieism movement must shed its enlightenment label and be seen as the closed minded doctrinarians they are.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It wasn't a failed legal attempt. It is no longer sponsored by the school. The situation was rectified. And I didn't file a harassment suit because I would prefer to be the victim instead of my attackers facing an overly harsh reprisal. I don't like hurting people.
Yeah... THAT's why... When a loosely unconfirmed Jesus wearing glasses and a big nose appears in a play under an alias, you need legal action to protect you and do it in such a way which could probably get faculty fired and hurt hundreds of kids, but when the victim of direct, verifiable, and criminal harassment, you say "I am a martyr and don't want to cause harm to people or get people in trouble."
Sorry, I don't buy it Don Quixote.
If he hadn't done it through legal means, how do you suggest he should've gone about protesting the issue? You'll have to forgive me if there's a lack of sympathy for the possibility of people losing their job due to breaking the law.
But when he has an actual case for criminal harassment, he avoids the law because he doesn't want to cause trouble and he wants to be a victim but does the exact opposite with a vague religious play? I think a teacher who is committing criminal harassment is way more dangerous than a failure of an establishment case which takes intellectual dishonesty to shoehorn Jesus into it. If the teacher is doing what he said, the teacher needs to be fired, he just needs to stand up and be honest like he claims he was with the religious content.
It looks really bad for the OP. He has been found to have lied or extensively mislead everyone with his claims of forced Christianity when impartial groups investigated and the content was laid bare.
And then when exposed, now we get fantastical stories of clear cut harassment the same way we supposedly had clear cut examples of establishing and practicing religion.... But when told to see legal recourse, he declines and claims to like to play the victim.
Sounds like the boy who cried wolf.
Either he is telling the truth and needs to seek legal protection from clear cut criminal harassment... Or he is not fully truthful and might want to seek some medical counseling and find out what is at the root of his Munchausen syndrome.
Orlanth wrote: Looks like there is a crapton of religion being forced down peoples throats in that school: Atheism.
Atheist zampolits calling out unbelievers for having content that might espouse another faith.
Here is the rub, the formal separation of church and state is a festering ground for militant atheism to flourish unchallenged, because formal separation is often extended to mean formal cleansing and anything even remotely religious can be complained about with legal documents waved about.
We are talking about a Latin Choir. Most of those do have strong religious tones, the music might be very old, but if the singing is in Latin rather than English is doesn't matter really, instead it's classical art or modern art with a classical bent.
Would you deny schools using Handel's Messiah or Bach's Kantanewerks in music or arts class? Both have very clear religious tones of reference but are seen as works of classical music in their own right, and are listened to by people with no formal interest in the Christian faith. Most of the baroque era classical music is religious as is most Latin choral. In fact you would have to eliminate most western music prior to the late 18th century if you were to remeove all regious references. You would keep most of Mozarts work, and a lot of volksopera stuff from the time, but that would be about it.
Does the pursuit of 'reason' and 'separation of church and state' warrant airbrushing out half of the era of classical music from schools? Your society needs to decide that, but if they do then the 'reasoned' athieism movement must shed its enlightenment label and be seen as the closed minded doctrinarians they are.
Militant atheism ?
I wasn't aware we had an army. Go us ! Lock and load mother fethers, here we come. Hide ya bibles, hide ya tabernacles!
The rest of these points have been addressed in the thread so i won't bother rehashing, but they'd been discussed before. You can read (or ignore) the point and counter point as you choose.
That said, much like the line between art and obscenity is thoroughly blurred a la Potter Stewart, the same can be said for situations like this. There's a very fine line between putting on a piece of art with religious tenor, and promoting religion. Context is huge. If the state is paying a teacher to make a work of art that is religious, using money to provide a venue for that, the dial turns much closer to promotion than art. There's many other contextual indicators too, you can do some research if you like, there's all sorts of info out there.
You can dislike that, but context is a gigantic part of things like this, and like obscenity where there isn't a cut and dry fine line or playbook to go by.
As i mentioned before, both sides had good points adn i think it would have made quite a good case to go to court. As the school moved the venue, the issue is now moot.
Those that get to see the play get to. Those that don't want to see it in school being promoted on them don't have to. Win win, i think, right ? No one is 100% happy which is typically the sign of a good compromise. Or maybe a school that didn't feel like having a constitutional law battle on its hand over this.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It wasn't a failed legal attempt. It is no longer sponsored by the school. The situation was rectified. And I didn't file a harassment suit because I would prefer to be the victim instead of my attackers facing an overly harsh reprisal. I don't like hurting people.
Yeah... THAT's why... When a loosely unconfirmed Jesus wearing glasses and a big nose appears in a play under an alias, you need legal action to protect you and do it in such a way which could probably get faculty fired and hurt hundreds of kids, but when the victim of direct, verifiable, and criminal harassment, you say "I am a martyr and don't want to cause harm to people or get people in trouble."
Sorry, I don't buy it Don Quixote.
Either he is telling the truth and needs to seek legal protection from clear cut criminal harassment... Or he is not fully truthful and might want to seek some medical counseling and find out what is at the root of his Munchausen syndrome.
Or, ya know, maybe he's a high school kid who was pretty brave standing up for something he believed in, but has had enough bs for now, and doesn't feel it worth his time or energy to pursue a harassment suit. Maybe he doesn't have the means to pay counsel for that. Maybe he figures the pendulum over I am Martol has had enough of a backswing that he'd like to just, ya know, go back to being a kid.
There's many possible reasons why he would not pursue harassment claims. It may not be as binary as you are attempting to portray the scenario.
People don't report crimes / take cases to civil court all the time because of risk vs. reward reasons. By the looks of it he's had some societal backlash over the I am Martol issue, and maybe being a 16-17 year old kid, he's had enough of that, figures he's sacrificed enough on the altar of standing up for what you believe in.
Guess all schools should stop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in school because it's a well known fact it has serious religious tones. Or The Lord of the Rings for that matter. Did you have a teacher ask you to read either of those in the past? Maybe you should take them to court too.
It really sounds like you were going out of your way to make sure you saw the Christian tones. Other people are saying they read it and can draw many other non-religious parallels. Translation: it's a thought provoking piece that enables the viewers/listeners to experience what they want to. Which should have been a good thing. Until you made it ugly.
timetowaste85 wrote: Guess all schools should stop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in school because it's a well known fact it has serious religious tones. Or The Lord of the Rings for that matter. Did you have a teacher ask you to read either of those in the past? Maybe you should take them to court too.
If Tolkien or Lewis had just written them while being paid for doing so by the state, absolutely. However, those two examples are also important parts of literary history. The play in question isn't.
timetowaste85 wrote: Guess all schools should stop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in school because it's a well known fact it has serious religious tones. Or The Lord of the Rings for that matter. Did you have a teacher ask you to read either of those in the past? Maybe you should take them to court too.
If Tolkien or Lewis had just written them while being paid for doing so by the state, absolutely. However, those two examples are also important parts of literary history. The play in question isn't.
That's probably a bad example, since Tolkien and Lewis were both professors at universities that are at least partially publicly funded.
timetowaste85 wrote: Guess all schools should stop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in school because it's a well known fact it has serious religious tones. Or The Lord of the Rings for that matter. Did you have a teacher ask you to read either of those in the past? Maybe you should take them to court too.
If Tolkien or Lewis had just written them while being paid for doing so by the state, absolutely. However, those two examples are also important parts of literary history. The play in question isn't.
That's probably a bad example, since Tolkien and Lewis were both professors at universities that are at least partially publicly funded.
They didn't use their writing in class though, did they?
timetowaste85 wrote: Guess all schools should stop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in school because it's a well known fact it has serious religious tones. Or The Lord of the Rings for that matter. Did you have a teacher ask you to read either of those in the past? Maybe you should take them to court too.
If Tolkien or Lewis had just written them while being paid for doing so by the state, absolutely. However, those two examples are also important parts of literary history. The play in question isn't.
That's probably a bad example, since Tolkien and Lewis were both professors at universities that are at least partially publicly funded.
At British universities where there is no American constitution to worry about, and generally writing in their own time.
timetowaste85 wrote: Guess all schools should stop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in school because it's a well known fact it has serious religious tones. Or The Lord of the Rings for that matter. Did you have a teacher ask you to read either of those in the past? Maybe you should take them to court too.
If Tolkien or Lewis had just written them while being paid for doing so by the state, absolutely. However, those two examples are also important parts of literary history. The play in question isn't.
That's probably a bad example, since Tolkien and Lewis were both professors at universities that are at least partially publicly funded.
They didn't use their writing in class though, did they?
Being a professor entails a lot of work beyond teaching classes - including writing and research. I don't know for a fact if they did use their writing in class or not, but it would not surprise me in the least if they did. It's a pretty common practice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: At British universities where there is no American constitution to worry about, and generally writing in their own time.
Professors are paid to write and do research, and both of them wrote prolifically. And the American constitution is not something you need to worry about. It's a comfort, really.
Orlanth wrote: Looks like there is a crapton of religion being forced down peoples throats in that school: Atheism.
First, atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.
Second, there's a huge difference between "we're not going to talk about god" and "let's talk about how god doesn't exist". Actual "militant atheism" (the second case) is just as unconstitutional as "militant Christianity" and would be treated exactly the same way. However, not getting to have your Christian beliefs/symbols/etc in public schools does not mean that anyone is saying "these are wrong" and promoting atheism.
Would you deny schools using Handel's Messiah or Bach's Kantanewerks in music or arts class?
No, because those are works of significant academic value and it's very clearly possible to cover them without endorsing their religious content. The key difference here, as we've explained multiple times already, is that the play is the teacher's own work. That changes the situation from "here's something in the textbook, and I'm not going to tell you my personal beliefs about its religious content" to "here's something I've written based on my religious beliefs, now I'm going to tell you all about it". Nobody could plausibly argue that they feel compelled to go along with Handel's religious beliefs just because they learn about his music, but that's much less true when the creator of the work is the person deciding your grade.
I think that's a spurious argument, especially considering that many academics use portions of their own books and articles in classes they teach, or have books and articles that are readily available, so that it is very straightforward to figure out where their opinion lies, even if they don't directly tell you.
Plenty of universities have courses taught by writers in residence or artists in residence, where the entire course is literally centered on works created by the person deciding your grade.
Hordini wrote: I think that's a spurious argument, especially considering that many academics use portions of their own books and articles in classes they teach, or have books and articles that are readily available, so that it is very straightforward to figure out where their opinion lies, even if they don't directly tell you.
That's not at all the same kind of situation for two reasons:
1) If the only way I know what a teacher's religious beliefs are is to go outside the class and look up something they've written elsewhere then separation of church and state is still maintained. In fact, because they've kept their beliefs out of the classroom so effectively, I have good reason to believe that they're doing so deliberately because they understand that their personal life is supposed to be separate from their teaching. So I have no reason to be worried about getting fair treatment from them.
2) The vast majority of the time a teacher's books/articles/etc have no controversial material. For example, my professor using their own textbook on Verilog programming didn't create any potential for unfairness because it was strictly factual material and nothing in it could conflict with my personal beliefs. But that's not the case with the play, which contained elements that people would have strong feelings about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: Plenty of universities have courses taught by writers in residence or artists in residence, where the entire course is literally centered on works created by the person deciding your grade.
But do they include religious elements?
Also, "other people do something inappropriate" isn't justification for doing something inappropriate yourself.
Hordini wrote: I think that's a spurious argument, especially considering that many academics use portions of their own books and articles in classes they teach, or have books and articles that are readily available, so that it is very straightforward to figure out where their opinion lies, even if they don't directly tell you.
That's not at all the same kind of situation for two reasons:
1) If the only way I know what a teacher's religious beliefs are is to go outside the class and look up something they've written elsewhere then separation of church and state is still maintained. In fact, because they've kept their beliefs out of the classroom so effectively, I have good reason to believe that they're doing so deliberately because they understand that their personal life is supposed to be separate from their teaching. So I have no reason to be worried about getting fair treatment from them.
2) The vast majority of the time a teacher's books/articles/etc have no controversial material. For example, my professor using their own textbook on Verilog programming didn't create any potential for unfairness because it was strictly factual material and nothing in it could conflict with my personal beliefs. But that's not the case with the play, which contained elements that people would have strong feelings about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: Plenty of universities have courses taught by writers in residence or artists in residence, where the entire course is literally centered on works created by the person deciding your grade.
But do they include religious elements?
Also, "other people do something inappropriate" isn't justification for doing something inappropriate yourself.
A teacher could just as easily be up front with their beliefs in the interest of full disclosure, while remaining completely professional in their teaching and encouraging healthy debate. I've seen this firsthand in political science and philosophy courses, among others. There is more than one way to go about it while still maintaining an appropriate level of professionalism.
And for a course taught by a writer in residence, there certainly could be religious elements. Literature is filled to the brim with religious symbolism, it would probably be more difficult to find material that couldn't be interpreted in a religious manner, at least in some form or fashion.
Peregrine wrote: The vast majority of the time a teacher's books/articles/etc have no controversial material.
I'm guessing your primary field of study was outside of the humanities.
Orlanth wrote: Looks like there is a crapton of religion being forced down peoples throats in that school: Atheism.
First, atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair style.
Hair colour is a skewed way of looking at it, because absent isn't a colour, but it is a style.
Bald and haircut occupy the same place, if you assigned a number to evenry haircut and a 0 for bald, bald would still be a number.
Consequently if you applies a hair colour to a number then agai you get a number rating of zero for atheist, still a number.
Atheists often use the myth that their belief system is not a belief system in order to foster preferential treatment with regard to issues where religion is seperate.
Atherism is very much a religion in terms of its beleif system and usage.
- It relies on the faith based idea that there is no God.
- It has components of all the facets of a major religion, including fanaticism, doctrinarianism, martyrdom and saintdom.
Second, there's a huge difference between "we're not going to talk about god" and "let's talk about how god doesn't exist".
There is not so much difference.
"We're not going to talk about God", uses the collective we and makes demands of everyone else, that is militant atheism.
Proporting religion and talking about God are two different things. God is a point of reference in much poetry and art, thee can be experienced without trying to actively convert anyone.
What atheists extremists want to do is to remove all reference to God from schools, which is a totally different thing from preventing the proliferation of religion.
Actual "militant atheism" (the second case) is just as unconstitutional as "militant Christianity" and would be treated exactly the same way. However, not getting to have your Christian beliefs/symbols/etc in public schools does not mean that anyone is saying "these are wrong" and promoting atheism.
The specific withdrawal is notable and noticable. By removing religious art from schools raises the question as to why. Educational subject material is most often redacted due to error so it places an error label on religious works.
Nobody could plausibly argue that they feel compelled to go along with Handel's religious beliefs just because they learn about his music, but that's much less true when the creator of the work is the person deciding your grade.
Here you are not criticisng the work presented, you are criticising the belief system of the teacher assuming, without evidence, that because they are religious they cannot assess students work impartially.
That is just blatant unwarranted discrimination.
There is nothing to suggest that a Latin choral, and therefore a work based on the usual religious themes of the artistic type cannot be assessed for its musical qualities.
It is ignorant revisionism to remove Latin choral from the canon of human art.
The teacher should be commended for keeping the religious elements entirely in Latin.
Besides in the UK and many other countries we had religious assembly, no Latin choral but stuff very similar sung in our own language. Those had no bearing on when I became a Christian, and were attended by people of other faiths. This was the 70's when things were a lot less prissy than today.
Having a school chastised because a teacher included unwanted religious references, in another language, in an arts class is the sort of gak you expect from countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
If you take the reaction tom this school performance and replace atheism with Islam and no-God with Mohammed and the reactions we are seeing would be plain as day for everyone.
Well done America, your atheist movement has going from infancy to religious police state without going through a period of enlightenment.
CptJake wrote: I've met atheists who had an absolute faith there is no God.
Without that they would be agnostics.
Maybe unshakeable belief, but not absolute faith. Faith is sort of a loaded term and not one correctly applied to atheists beliefs.
Faith in the religious usage of the word: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
(https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+of+faith) in case anyone thinks i'm using a pejorative form of the word.
Atheism is the diametric opposite of that ; there is no spiritual apprehension in atheism. It is not the belief that "there is no god". It is the complete lack of belief in anthropomorphic beings (vis-a-vis, "gods").
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=atheism
Subtle but sure difference. Not trying to be an asshat, but as an atheist (and one that tries not to be super douchey about it), there's a distinct difference between "not believing in a god" and "lacking any belief in god(s)". And the gulf between Agnosticism and Atheism is pretty big too. One is completely open to the idea of gods but finds the notion almost alien and uncomprehensible, the other lacks the belief in god(s) in any form.
I only bring it up because just like there's differences between Catholics, Southern Baptists, Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, etc., there's distinctions on this side of the fence as well.
I have no doubt you've met some super douchey atheists out there who love nothing more than to shout their beliefs from the rooftops and get into theological arguments with religious adherents, but like all people and all people of different belief structures, there's dickheads within any belief structure, whether it is hyper organized, or disjointed. Saying they have "faith" though is sort of an oxymoron. It is exactly the lack of faith (from the religious useage of the word, not the one meaning synonymous with "trust") that is the defining characteristic of an Atheist, and one of the main separators from Agnosticism. But for that lack of faith, I would almost dare say that Atheism would not be a thing, and you'd be correct, they would be Agnostic.
that complete lack of faith (vis-a-vis, "belief") in a god is the defining characteristic of an Atheists "belief" structure though. So it's an important distinction.
I typically can't stand super vocal atheists as much as faith believers, fwiw. It seems to me atheists that bang the drum and have to take every opportunity to caustically engage faith believers are doing more to try to reaffirm to themselves what they've chosen to believe rather than being something they really do believe. It's fine to discuss, but when atheists use "I'm an atheist..." as the proverbial loading of the canon, then that's just crossing into jerk territory.
Anywho... sorry to veer a bit off topic. I though the clarification worthwhile to the tangential discussion though.
Pretty sure that definition fits exactly what I meant.
Yes, your definition, specific to religion, is different, BUT that definition is secondary/based on the first, with the subject of the 'complete trust or confidence' being in 'God exists'.
At least some of the atheists I have met have absolute faith (complete trust or confidence) God does not exist.
The default state of being is that there is nothing. it is only through experiencing things that we can challange that state.
I have not experienced anything that leads me to think that any supernatural forces or beings exist, therefore I do not need to believe there are no such things any more than I need to not believe in unicorns, teapots orbiting pluto or honest politicians.
Orlanth wrote: Hair colour is a skewed way of looking at it, because absent isn't a colour, but it is a style.
Yes, I know that once you change the statement it reflects your belief that atheism is a religion. However, the statement was already just fine the way it was.
- It relies on the faith based idea that there is no God.
No it doesn't. It relies on the faith-free idea that there is no credible evidence for the existence of god or the truth of any religion.
- It has components of all the facets of a major religion, including fanaticism, doctrinarianism, martyrdom and saintdom.
It really doesn't.
There is not so much difference.
"We're not going to talk about God", uses the collective we and makes demands of everyone else, that is militant atheism.
This is just laughably wrong. Not talking about god does not imply any position on the existence of god or the truth of any particular religion. It simply says "we're not going to discuss this subject". We're not going to talk about reasons to believe in god, we're not going to talk about reasons not to believe in god. If you believe in a god then nothing in your belief is challenged. The only religion that suffers any loss at all from this position is the kind that has an obsessive need to constantly tell everyone about how wonderful their god is and recruit new followers.
What atheists extremists want to do is to remove all reference to God from schools, which is a totally different thing from preventing the proliferation of religion.
Even if this were true (it isn't) what's your point? You don't have a right to have elements of your religion in schools.
The specific withdrawal is notable and noticable. By removing religious art from schools raises the question as to why. Educational subject material is most often redacted due to error so it places an error label on religious works.
This is simply not true. If we don't talk about the results of last night's baseball games in math class that doesn't mean that baseball is an error*, it just means that it's a subject that shouldn't be discussed in math class. And let's not forget that this "extremist" policy of removing all religious works entirely would include removing atheist art/literature/etc. By your argument this would mean that the policy is also applying the "error" label to atheism.
*Of course baseball is an error that should be corrected, but this is not the evidence for it.
Here you are not criticisng the work presented, you are criticising the belief system of the teacher assuming, without evidence, that because they are religious they cannot assess students work impartially.
That is just blatant unwarranted discrimination.
No, I'm making that assumption based on the fact that the teacher brought their personal religious beliefs into the classroom instead of keeping them private. And I'm not assuming that they necessarily will be unfair in their grading, I'm saying that a student might believe that this could happen. The line of separation of church and state has to be enforced based on the worst-case assumptions, we can't wait until there is conclusive evidence of a problem before finally stepping in to do something about it.
Also, if you think I'm being unfair to the poor teacher, perhaps you should read the OP's recent posts in this thread, where they explicitly state that "he mentioned his religion in context with the opera."
If you take the reaction tom this school performance and replace atheism with Islam and no-God with Mohammed and the reactions we are seeing would be plain as day for everyone.
Except that's not a valid substitution because it would be a case of promoting one religion (Islam) over another (Christianity), a clear violation of separation of church and state. That's not at all the same as saying "keep your religion, whatever it is, out of your classroom".
Pretty sure that definition fits exactly what I meant.
Yes, your definition, specific to religion, is different, BUT that definition is secondary/based on the first, with the subject of the 'complete trust or confidence' being in 'God exists'.
At least some of the atheists I have met have absolute faith (complete trust or confidence) God does not exist.
... Well it IS a thread about religion tangents, is it not? That's why i ran with the accepted lexiconical usage of the word having more to do with "religious / spiritual belief" than "trust".
Your definition fits, but I would daresay within the context of the thread / conversation, it fits less well than the other definition, which is why I used it, but this is splitting hairs I suppose.
I enjoy that the only worthwhile thing you found in my post was definitional differentiation. It's all good though, I am not out on a crusade of any kind, i just wanted to make a couple minor points.
Today we went to a mandatory assembly on alcoholism, where a few people and the superintendent spoke on DUIs. When the superintendent mentions he is glad that he didn't injure anyone or else he would have gone to prison, he says" It was only by the grace of god! I said god!(hand motion in my general direction, not sure if intentional) that no one was hurt"
Ugh. Not sure if paranoid or if they really are out to get me….
It's the night after the first performance, so this is irrelevant already, but this was an important chapter of my life unfortunately, so I have to vent somewhere. I can't sleep anyway, so why not. So far people have moved from hostility to just ignoring me, I guess that is better. About two weeks ago, the opera group took the stage from south high school(it was paid for with school money) and claimed it as their own. I mentioned it to my parents and got the whole"what the hell is wrong with you, you already ruined enough people's lives" mixed with Christian Murica land speech. They made an agreement to not support the opera anymore, and they donated school property, and they went back on their word. Recently a news article interviewed Mr Richard, and apparently he picked the new director for the opera because he wasn't allowed to supervise it anymore. On a happy note, only 25 kids out of 46 are still doing the opera. Some kids from choir apparently didn't like the message either, based on what I have heard, but most of them probably were just busy.
I am thinking of going to see a therapist. Considering I am writing this a. 3 am, I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. I also kind of hate some of the people who did this- Richard, the principal, the superintendent, some of the meaner bullies- which is really a wierd feeling for me- I typically don't feel very much at all, kind of a blunted effect. I have also started having a hard time sleeping, and I am really obsessed with this production still. I can't get it out of my head! It is ridiculous, I know, but I wonder if I have some minor PTSD or something?
Anyway, I know this is a selfish post, but I needed somewhere to express myself.
I am thinking of going to see a therapist. Considering I am writing this a. 3 am, I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. I also kind of hate some of the people who did this- Richard, the principal, the superintendent, some of the meaner bullies- which is really a wierd feeling for me- I typically don't feel very much at all, kind of a blunted effect. I have also started having a hard time sleeping, and I am really obsessed with this production still. I can't get it out of my head! It is ridiculous, I know, but I wonder if I have some minor PTSD or something?
If this was so traumatic to you that it gave you PTSD, seeing a therapist may be a good move.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It's the night after the first performance, so this is irrelevant already, but this was an important chapter of my life unfortunately, so I have to vent somewhere. I can't sleep anyway, so why not. So far people have moved from hostility to just ignoring me, I guess that is better. About two weeks ago, the opera group took the stage from south high school(it was paid for with school money) and claimed it as their own. I mentioned it to my parents and got the whole"what the hell is wrong with you, you already ruined enough people's lives" mixed with Christian Murica land speech. They made an agreement to not support the opera anymore, and they donated school property, and they went back on their word. Recently a news article interviewed Mr Richard, and apparently he picked the new director for the opera because he wasn't allowed to supervise it anymore. On a happy note, only 25 kids out of 46 are still doing the opera. Some kids from choir apparently didn't like the message either, based on what I have heard, but most of them probably were just busy.
I am thinking of going to see a therapist. Considering I am writing this a. 3 am, I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. I also kind of hate some of the people who did this- Richard, the principal, the superintendent, some of the meaner bullies- which is really a wierd feeling for me- I typically don't feel very much at all, kind of a blunted effect. I have also started having a hard time sleeping, and I am really obsessed with this production still. I can't get it out of my head! It is ridiculous, I know, but I wonder if I have some minor PTSD or something?
Anyway, I know this is a selfish post, but I needed somewhere to express myself.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It's the night after the first performance, so this is irrelevant already, but this was an important chapter of my life unfortunately, so I have to vent somewhere. I can't sleep anyway, so why not. So far people have moved from hostility to just ignoring me, I guess that is better. About two weeks ago, the opera group took the stage from south high school(it was paid for with school money) and claimed it as their own. I mentioned it to my parents and got the whole"what the hell is wrong with you, you already ruined enough people's lives" mixed with Christian Murica land speech. They made an agreement to not support the opera anymore, and they donated school property, and they went back on their word. Recently a news article interviewed Mr Richard, and apparently he picked the new director for the opera because he wasn't allowed to supervise it anymore. On a happy note, only 25 kids out of 46 are still doing the opera. Some kids from choir apparently didn't like the message either, based on what I have heard, but most of them probably were just busy.
I am thinking of going to see a therapist. Considering I am writing this a. 3 am, I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. I also kind of hate some of the people who did this- Richard, the principal, the superintendent, some of the meaner bullies- which is really a wierd feeling for me- I typically don't feel very much at all, kind of a blunted effect. I have also started having a hard time sleeping, and I am really obsessed with this production still. I can't get it out of my head! It is ridiculous, I know, but I wonder if I have some minor PTSD or something?
Anyway, I know this is a selfish post, but I needed somewhere to express myself.
Have you considered getting a job?
Clap.... Clap.... Clap....
/end thread
I have been working about 7-8 hours a day on learning 3ds max, so no.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It's the night after the first performance, so this is irrelevant already, but this was an important chapter of my life unfortunately, so I have to vent somewhere. I can't sleep anyway, so why not. So far people have moved from hostility to just ignoring me, I guess that is better. About two weeks ago, the opera group took the stage from south high school(it was paid for with school money) and claimed it as their own. I mentioned it to my parents and got the whole"what the hell is wrong with you, you already ruined enough people's lives" mixed with Christian Murica land speech. They made an agreement to not support the opera anymore, and they donated school property, and they went back on their word. Recently a news article interviewed Mr Richard, and apparently he picked the new director for the opera because he wasn't allowed to supervise it anymore. On a happy note, only 25 kids out of 46 are still doing the opera. Some kids from choir apparently didn't like the message either, based on what I have heard, but most of them probably were just busy.
I am thinking of going to see a therapist. Considering I am writing this a. 3 am, I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. I also kind of hate some of the people who did this- Richard, the principal, the superintendent, some of the meaner bullies- which is really a wierd feeling for me- I typically don't feel very much at all, kind of a blunted effect. I have also started having a hard time sleeping, and I am really obsessed with this production still. I can't get it out of my head! It is ridiculous, I know, but I wonder if I have some minor PTSD or something?
Anyway, I know this is a selfish post, but I needed somewhere to express myself.
Have you considered getting a job?
Please do not ever say this to a person who comes to you saying they are exhibiting signs of mental illness. Seriously, do not ever say this, it can only complicate things and make the person feel worse.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: It's the night after the first performance, so this is irrelevant already, but this was an important chapter of my life unfortunately, so I have to vent somewhere. I can't sleep anyway, so why not. So far people have moved from hostility to just ignoring me, I guess that is better. About two weeks ago, the opera group took the stage from south high school(it was paid for with school money) and claimed it as their own. I mentioned it to my parents and got the whole"what the hell is wrong with you, you already ruined enough people's lives" mixed with Christian Murica land speech. They made an agreement to not support the opera anymore, and they donated school property, and they went back on their word. Recently a news article interviewed Mr Richard, and apparently he picked the new director for the opera because he wasn't allowed to supervise it anymore. On a happy note, only 25 kids out of 46 are still doing the opera. Some kids from choir apparently didn't like the message either, based on what I have heard, but most of them probably were just busy.
I am thinking of going to see a therapist. Considering I am writing this a. 3 am, I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. I also kind of hate some of the people who did this- Richard, the principal, the superintendent, some of the meaner bullies- which is really a wierd feeling for me- I typically don't feel very much at all, kind of a blunted effect. I have also started having a hard time sleeping, and I am really obsessed with this production still. I can't get it out of my head! It is ridiculous, I know, but I wonder if I have some minor PTSD or something?
Anyway, I know this is a selfish post, but I needed somewhere to express myself.
Have you considered getting a job?
Please do not ever say this to a person who comes to you saying they are exhibiting signs of mental illness. Seriously, do not ever say this, it can only complicate things and make the person feel worse.
Are you saying another Dakka poster has a mental illness?
Why me.
s doesn't mean that it's right for people to act that way.
.
