Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 04:06:34
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Peregrine wrote: 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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 04:16:55
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 10:39:48
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
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)?
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.
|
daedalus wrote:
I mean, it's Dakka. I thought snide arguments from emotion were what we did here.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 10:44:03
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
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.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 11:35:07
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
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?. 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. Automatically Appended Next Post: Haight wrote: 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)? 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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/30 11:42:07
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 19:27:24
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God
Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 19:49:18
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/30 19:51:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 19:54:08
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Hordini wrote: 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?
Possibly yes however those cases are not this case.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 20:50:24
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Peregrine wrote: 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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/30 20:57:35
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
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?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/30 21:42:48
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 05:17:15
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 05:33:09
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 05:45:28
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/02 05:46:43
Help me, Rhonda. HA! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 06:43:37
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/02 06:52:35
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 07:06:14
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Hordini wrote: 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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 13:19:25
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
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.
|
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/02 13:38:30
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Kilkrazy wrote: Hordini wrote: 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.
Which is why i keep saying its a good one.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/02 13:38:56
daedalus wrote:
I mean, it's Dakka. I thought snide arguments from emotion were what we did here.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/09 16:05:21
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Incubus
|
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
|
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/09 18:31:18
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
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?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/09 18:40:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 00:06:27
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Hordini wrote: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.
Script in this link
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/05/religious_opera_wont_be_perfor.html
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/10 00:27:26
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 01:08:44
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Incubus
|
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?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/10 01:22:52
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 01:34:51
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/10 01:39:10
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 01:40:59
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Incubus
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/10 01:45:25
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:03:26
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
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.
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:07:46
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/10 02:08:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:13:58
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Hordini wrote: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.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/10 02:15:43
daedalus wrote:
I mean, it's Dakka. I thought snide arguments from emotion were what we did here.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:22:40
Subject: Re:A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Incubus
|
nkelsch wrote: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.
|
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:31:45
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
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?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/10 02:32:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:43:30
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/05/10 02:53:14
Subject: A school production and the 1st amendment
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Peregrine wrote: 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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|