Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Man, my deju vu. This sounds familiar.

 daedalus wrote:
Man, my deju vu. This sounds familiar.

It was mentioned in another thread, and I didn't want to stray OT there, so I let it die.

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.


edit: yeah, I found the cite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School

 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.


edit: yeah, I found the cite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School

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).

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Is this a problem worth going to the higher ups about?

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.

edit: yeah, I found the cite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School

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.

 Peregrine wrote:


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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

{Citation needed.}

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Is this a problem worth going to the higher ups about?

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Ugh, this is getting bad. Last friday we went through some of the dialog.

The Lord has a message for thee Sinner

Lord, what a curious name(pun because latin) I know him not

The lord helps those who are blind, those who are lost, etc.

Or even better, this is a fun chant with four seperate vocalists.

Every drop feeds him (devil)

It comes from within sinner

Though lovest what though ought to hate, though hatest what though ought to love

Do you deny it.

Why me.

Oof, that's bad.