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.

Doing what is right is very rarely doing what is popular.

 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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I have two questions for the OP before remarking:

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.

Those are obviously intended to promote Christianity.

 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.

Lord

Sin

Heaven

I think it's a pretty easy assumption to make that it's about Christianity. Regardless, it still violates the 1st.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think it's a pretty easy assumption to make that it's about Christianity. Regardless, it still violates the 1st.

How does it violate the 1st Amendment? Because it's a piece of art that deals with religious themes?


Multiple publicly funded universities in the US have done performances of Jesus Christ Superstar. Is that a 1st amendment violation?

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.

 Torga_DW wrote:

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.

Where do you all draw the line?

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?

Whether or no it promotes religion. Simply being about religion isn't enough.

 CptJake wrote:
Where do you all draw the line?

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).

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

How can you know that without both actually reading the play and knowing the artist who created it?

 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?

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.