PDA

View Full Version : Seasonal/religious question



John Smith
11-26-2011, 08:52 AM
I had a discussion the other day with a very religious woman who is upset that Christmas Carols have been banned from school concerts. I'm not particularly sure this is true. I've heard some complaints, but I'm not so sure but that this isn't more of a knee jerk reaction. The Supreme Court, as I recall, ruled that the school cannot sponsor a prayer. I know of Jewish singers (Marty Robbnis for one) who recorded Christmas albums. I hate religion, but I enjoy the carols: one not need be Italian to enjoy pizza.

This brings me to my question. If O Holy Night, Silent Night, etc. are dones as instrumentals does it change anything?

Keith Wilson
11-26-2011, 08:59 AM
IIRC it's not the law at all, but ISAS (Idiot School Administrator Syndrome), going overboard to not offend anyone, and managing to offend everyone in the process.

Reynard38
11-26-2011, 09:01 AM
Much truth to this. Back when my daughter was in elementary school my wife volunteered as a cultural arts director due to her background. One Christmas she had a steel band from Trinidad play for the kids. Of course being the holidays they played (no singing) silent night.
The principal had an absolute fit! She was worried some of the Jewish and Muslim students (we have quite a few here) would be offended. None were they just loved the music as many of them had never heard a steel band before.
Anyway my wife ended up getting chewed out for her volunteer efforts.
That was the end of that arrangement...

S.V. Airlie
11-26-2011, 09:11 AM
All it takes is one to complain...One has to respect her/rights afterall. I'd tell the biddies to get over it...

John Smith
11-26-2011, 09:28 AM
All it takes is one to complain...One has to respect her/rights afterall. I'd tell the biddies to get over it...

My view on this is "under God" has no place in the pledge.

Christmas carols have long been a traditional part of the season. Including them in a holiday concert at this time of year is a learning experience. I have to admit ignorance as to other religions who might also have songes traditional to the season, but they should also be included.

I imagine it might be worthwhile sending a note home to all the parents asking if anyone would mind carols included in the concert. They may get less objections than they think.

Not all complaints are ligitimate. There is a difference between a school concert, especially if joining the choir is vuluntary and attenting the performance is voluntary, as opposed having the entire class say a prayer.

S.V. Airlie
11-26-2011, 09:30 AM
AsI said, John, it only takes one to object..The others won't matter...Many of these issues are not majority issues as the majority mat not object at all. Throw one or five or even ten complainers in the mix and administrators take notice.

Keith Wilson
11-26-2011, 09:30 AM
And besides,the religious songs are almost the only decent ones. If you leave 'em, out, you get stuck with atrocities like Frosty the Snowman.

John Smith
11-26-2011, 09:34 AM
AsI said, John, it only takes one to object..The others won't matter...

That's because the people teaching our children have been blinded and can't see the truth. The ONLY ruling the Supreme Court made, as I recall, was the school cannot sponosor a prayer. They never said no one can pray in school, although you'd think that's what they said.

The reason for all this misinformation is to make those who support the separation look worse than they really are. Instead of telling people what the rulling actually said, tell them something that will really make them angry.

The sad thing is a lot of folks are missing some lovely music.

John Smith
11-26-2011, 09:38 AM
And besides,the religious songs are almost the only decent ones. If you leave 'em, out, you get stuck with atrocities like Frosty the Snowman.
It certainly limits the selection.

S.V. Airlie
11-26-2011, 09:39 AM
As I aid nothing about the rulings of the Supreme Court on this, I am not sure why I was thrown under the bus. I was just saying that it only takes a few complainers to thwart the majority who are not opposed.The same thing happens with people who want change the language in a few authors books such as Twain, Steinbeck, etc. and the original texts are banned and new ones are written to be PC.

htom
11-26-2011, 09:46 AM
There is no right not to be offended.

S.V. Airlie
11-26-2011, 09:49 AM
Doesn't matter.....Tom...How many creches have you seen on church property at Christmas recently? I haven't seen one in about 10 years. Was I offended by them, no..I wasn't. What happened to them? Oh right, a few were and the creches were removed.

Shang
11-26-2011, 10:15 AM
Just a danged minute here! I follow a little-recognized religious sect that reveres a reindeer with a red nose; I hope you're not suggesting that our principal hymn be excluded from school celebrations?

Oh, and Frosty is his prophet.

S.V. Airlie
11-26-2011, 10:22 AM
If someone complains, you may be out of luck..I've given PETA your number. Obviously a case of animal abuse.

John Smith
11-26-2011, 11:02 AM
All of this comes after the Supreme Court ruling that has been misinterpreted. My friend also complained about not being able to display nativity seens at public buildings. There I disagree with her.

Maybe someone can enlighten met as to why displaying nativity scenes is important anyway.

S.V. Airlie
11-26-2011, 11:03 AM
Don'tknow but it has been a few years since I have seen one..More than likely someone complained..

Keith Wilson
11-26-2011, 02:07 PM
Churches can display anything they want, as can individuals or corporations. Tax-funded nativity scenes on public property are not OK.

CWSmith
11-26-2011, 03:38 PM
I honestly think the pendulum swings both ways and in time this nonsense will give way to a more tolerant view that welcomes expressions of personal belief and accepts diversity of opinion. If we can set aside all the anger, that largely exists from tangential experiences, the reality is that our lives are enriched if we spend some time celebrating Christian holidays with Christians, Jewish holidays with Jews, etc. But tolerance is not the guiding principle of today's behavior.

Durnik
11-26-2011, 03:39 PM
And besides,the religious songs are almost the only decent ones. If you leave 'em, out, you get stuck with atrocities like Frosty the Snowman.

well.., there's always "Percy, the Puny Poinsettia" or the classic "Grandma got run over by a Reindeer"..

or, perhaps "Happy Christmas (War is Over)", "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", "(I'm Dreaming of a) White Christmas" , "Feliz Navidad", "Jingle Bells" (& "Jingle Bell Rock", of course), "Winter Wonderland", & the incomparable "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" ;-) for a few.. True, Christmas does imply religious.. but Yule came before that.. some of us are simply 'retro'.. ;-)

of course, you did say 'almost'.. BTW, I do like "Little Drummer Boy".. & Feliz Navidad does ref a religious origin..

however, many religious songs, like many hymns, are a bit 'over the top' & seem to more drive home the hypocrisy of (many of ) the religious. When the church gets behind peace & the succor of the needy (& leaves politics & money alone), I'll feel better about the religious celebrations.

enjoy
bobby

Apologies & thanks to the all too few churches who do or try to support all..

Keith Wilson
11-26-2011, 04:09 PM
, there's always "Percy, the Puny Poinsettia" or the classic "Grandma got run over by a Reindeer"..And the undisputed champion of schlocky Christmas songs, Jingle-o The Brownie! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPFvgKEPQCM) :D

Point taken. By the 25th, hearing one more godawful arrangement on the Muzak of any Christmas song, secular or religious, is enough to make me start to drool and twitch uncontrollably.

CWSmith
11-26-2011, 04:15 PM
And the undisputed champion of schlocky Christmas songs, Jingle-o The Brownie! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPFvgKEPQCM) :D

Point taken. By the 25th, hearing one more godawful arrangement on the Muzak of any Christmas song, secular or religious, is enough to make me start to drool and twitch uncontrollably.

You must be as old as me. I remember when the Christmas celebration began a week before Christmas. Now, by the time Christmas arives I'm pretty much sick of it.

Keith Wilson
11-26-2011, 04:19 PM
Hell, I'd be happy if it they waited till a month before Christmas.

bobbys
11-26-2011, 04:26 PM
And besides,the religious songs are almost the only decent ones. If you leave 'em, out, you get stuck with atrocities like Frosty the Snowman..

I know your a liberal/commie/progressive:d/Presbyterian but in sure you like the beach boys version of Frosty.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-slDxFziXk

Keith Wilson
11-26-2011, 04:29 PM
Far, far worse - a liberal/commie/fascist/socialist/rastafarian/maoist/royalist/decemberist/progressive/Unitarian! :d

But I don't have a strong enough stomach to listen to that.

Mrleft8
11-26-2011, 04:34 PM
And what's with all the nativity creches in Mississippi having the 3 wise men dressed up in fireman outfits anyway?

Mad Scientist
11-26-2011, 06:31 PM
Hmmm...Nov. 26 - Must be time for the Easter bunnies to go on sale!!!

Tom

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-26-2011, 06:53 PM
That's because the people teaching our children have been blinded and can't see the truth. The ONLY ruling the Supreme Court made, as I recall, was the school cannot sponosor a prayer. They never said no one can pray in school, although you'd think that's what they said.

The reason for all this misinformation is to make those who support the separation look worse than they really are. Instead of telling people what the rulling actually said, tell them something that will really make them angry.

The sad thing is a lot of folks are missing some lovely music.

You gotta' think in more practical terms.
A school administrator is not necessarily playing lawyer. He/she is just trying to avoid getting hauled into court by someone whose noise is out of joint. Having to defend against even a frivilous law suite can cut a hole in the school's/district's budget.

Waddie
11-26-2011, 07:03 PM
So all displays and accommodations for religious purposes on public property are wrong? Hmmm, that opens up a Pandora's Box......

regards,
Waddie

elf
11-26-2011, 07:41 PM
Not in my town.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-26-2011, 08:26 PM
So all displays and accommodations for religious purposes on public property are wrong? Hmmm, that opens up a Pandora's Box......

regards,
Waddie

You didn't exactly go from A to Z,Wad. The folks would be pleased to know what you envision is in that box of yours.

Waddie
11-26-2011, 09:25 PM
You didn't exactly go from A to Z,Wad. The folks would be pleased to know what you envision is in that box of yours.

Well, Chuc, since you asked....

to see what's in Pandor'a's Box. and here are just a few samples; (just the tip of the iceberg on this issue, but I didn't want too long of a post). :)

Should we display religious art in public museums? In a public park? Is that promoting religion?

Shiva as Lord of Music is on display at the San Diego Museum of Art in Balboa Park

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/13/shiva-as-lord-of-music/

In San Jose, California, a statue is erected in a city park with taxpayer money that celebrates an Aztec god to whom child sacrifices were made. While in San Diego, California, a court rules that a cross that has stood in a park for many years must now be removed. An Aztec god, yes; a symbol of Christianity, no. In parks, schools, and public institutions across the country, this kind of double standard has become more and more common."

http://www.fight4truth.org/id7.html

Can we simply make the public land upon which stands religious symbols private land?

The "Mojave Cross" Case: Salazar v. Buono (2010)
In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's injunction that prevented the federal government from implementing a land transfer statute that would exchange a piece of land in the Mojave Preserve, federal land, for a piece of private land of roughly equal value. The piece of public land to be exchanged for private land contained a controversial Latin cross (see picture above) that had been placed in the Preserve over 70 years ago by the VFW as a way of honoring the nation's war dead.

If private groups display on public land are they protected by the 1st Amendmant?

In 1995, in Capitol Square Review Board, the Court considered whether a free-standing cross, placed by the KKK in a public square across from the Ohio State Capitol building, would violate the Establishment Clause. Concluding that the space in question was a public forum (a space traditionally used for, or set aside for, expressive activity), the Court ruled that private placement of the cross would not constitute an endorsement of religion.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/religioussymbols.htm

Should religious or even anti-religious art by paid for out of public funds?

In free societies, artists may produce any type of work that their talent, imagination and means can
support, whether it is controversial or not. However, the question arises: Do
artists have the same freedom when their art is publicly funded by taxpayer
dollars?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/public-funding-of-controversial-art

ponder and enjoy....this issue has filled tomes of litigation.

regards,
Waddie

John Smith
11-26-2011, 10:00 PM
You gotta' think in more practical terms.
A school administrator is not necessarily playing lawyer. He/she is just trying to avoid getting hauled into court by someone whose noise is out of joint. Having to defend against even a frivilous law suite can cut a hole in the school's/district's budget.
It's not so easy to file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not aware of any suit against carols in concerts. I view this as an unreasonable fear of law suits. All the law suit would do in this case is tell them they have to stop, and they could do that immediately upon a letter from a lawyer. I'm just not sure a lawyer would take the case.

John Smith
11-26-2011, 10:05 PM
Well, Chuc, since you asked....

to see what's in Pandor'a's Box. and here are just a few samples; (just the tip of the iceberg on this issue, but I didn't want too long of a post). :)

Should we display religious art in public museums? In a public park? Is that promoting religion?

Shiva as Lord of Music is on display at the San Diego Museum of Art in Balboa Park

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/13/shiva-as-lord-of-music/

In San Jose, California, a statue is erected in a city park with taxpayer money that celebrates an Aztec god to whom child sacrifices were made. While in San Diego, California, a court rules that a cross that has stood in a park for many years must now be removed. An Aztec god, yes; a symbol of Christianity, no. In parks, schools, and public institutions across the country, this kind of double standard has become more and more common."

http://www.fight4truth.org/id7.html

Can we simply make the public land upon which stands religious symbols private land?

The "Mojave Cross" Case: Salazar v. Buono (2010)
In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's injunction that prevented the federal government from implementing a land transfer statute that would exchange a piece of land in the Mojave Preserve, federal land, for a piece of private land of roughly equal value. The piece of public land to be exchanged for private land contained a controversial Latin cross (see picture above) that had been placed in the Preserve over 70 years ago by the VFW as a way of honoring the nation's war dead.

If private groups display on public land are they protected by the 1st Amendmant?

In 1995, in Capitol Square Review Board, the Court considered whether a free-standing cross, placed by the KKK in a public square across from the Ohio State Capitol building, would violate the Establishment Clause. Concluding that the space in question was a public forum (a space traditionally used for, or set aside for, expressive activity), the Court ruled that private placement of the cross would not constitute an endorsement of religion.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/religioussymbols.htm

Should religious or even anti-religious art by paid for out of public funds?

In free societies, artists may produce any type of work that their talent, imagination and means can
support, whether it is controversial or not. However, the question arises: Do
artists have the same freedom when their art is publicly funded by taxpayer
dollars?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/public-funding-of-controversial-art

ponder and enjoy....this issue has filled tomes of litigation.

regards,
Waddie
Deep questions. Courts disagree with each other: much like on Obamacare.

I'm inclined to keep religious symbols off of public property. Art is another manner. However, if the church can complain about a piece of art, they open the door.

All of this strays from the thread question. If we are to have a holiday concert, what is wrong with songs relating to the holiday being performed? Especially if all involved are given a change to object beforehand or to opt out?

Durnik
11-26-2011, 10:38 PM
A) The San Diego Museum of Art seems to be financed by contributions.. You may remember the Republicans have fairly successfully eliminated most, if not all, public financing of 'art'..

B) A statue of an Aztec god is likely _not_ a symbol of a religion placed their by adherents of that religion for the purpose of 'advertising' their 'rightness'.. IE, it is of historical significance only

2 down, let carry on!

C) A cross is a symbol used to proclaim that a currently active religion has 'control' in that place. To place a symbol of the control of an active religion in a place owned in part by people who are not of that religion should be obviously wrong to anyone. To ref A), above, if the Azetc religion in question had active chapters in your town, would you want your children to have its symbol (as well as its adherents) in their face? At the present time, you can explain away the Aztec statue as 'of the long ago past'.. If it were active, you could not.

D) Should religious or even anti-religious art by paid for out of public funds? We've already covered this in part.. Public funds are not that prevalent, if at all existing, in art.. & there is no such thing as 'religious art'.. religious themed art, yes.. & it is acceptable.. where only adults can see it. I would not warp a childs mind with 'Christianity'.. tho I would teach them of Christ..

E) your "Mojave Cross" example is backwards.. The courts ruled to _keep_ the land with the cross and require the case to continue in court. But, to follow the logic, should there be crosses in public cemeteries? Stars of David? Should members of Islam have their symbols on headstones in public cemeteries?

This whole thing is foolish. The Ridiculous Right does not want a separation of Church & State. They want a 'Christian' State, their version of 'Christian', where others can not exist. Let me say loud & clear. That is as bad as a state government centered around Islam. Perhaps, worse. Islam has rules to govern honest interactions with peoples of other religions. 'Christianity' does not.

The source of at least one of your 'facts' is full of.. non-facts.. Here's one
"we have already seen, our founders were Christians.."
Um, Survey says.. Baaaa! Sorry, our nations founders were _not_ Christians. They were mostly Deist's . Other references in the page follow the same format.. namely, "I already claimed this.. it proves that".. No, sorry.. You can not support 'Christian' claims by simply claiming 'Christians' are right. We've been thru this.. SamF is (in)famous for spewing this type of unrecognizable drivel.

Shorter Version.. Nothing of value in your post, carry on all..

From John Smith


All of this strays from the thread question. If we are to have a holiday concert, what is wrong with songs relating to the holiday being performed? Especially if all involved are given a change to object beforehand or to opt out?

Technically & realistically speaking, a concert in a public park is fine - even with Christmas music. After all, a May Pole Dance in the same park is also fine.. tho the May Pole Dance has to 'modify' itself to not offend the sensibilities of 'Christians'.. Hmm, looks like it is the 'Christians' who most 'get their way'.. all the while crying "Hey, Not Fair".

BTW, those wanting the U.S. to "get back to it's roots" might be well served to take a gander at some counter points (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html).


"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."
James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty",

For clarification, support of one is interference in all others..

enjoy
bobby

Waddie
11-26-2011, 11:15 PM
All of this strays from the thread question. If we are to have a holiday concert, what is wrong with songs relating to the holiday being performed? Especially if all involved are given a change to object beforehand or to opt out?

strays from the thread question; These examples should satisfy your desire to stay on topic.

what is wrong with songs relating to the holiday being performed? ; A lot wrong apparently;

Supreme Court Says “No” to Religious Songs in SOMA
BY Erika Bleiberg | Tuesday, Oct 05, 2010 9:03am

There will be no singing of “Silent Night” — or any other religious songs — at holiday concerts in South Orange-Maplewood schools, according to yesterday’s decision by the nation’s highest court.

The U. S. Supreme Court justices declined to take up an appeal of the school district’s ban on celebratory religious music. The case dates back to 2004, when parent Michael Stratechuk, who then had sons in 7th and 9th grades, sued the district over its policy that bars the performance of religious songs.
In an official statement, district superintendent Brian Osborne said that the policy “was adopted to promote an inclusive environment for all students in our school community. We have always felt our policy was constitutional and are pleased with the outcome.”
http://www.baristanet.com/2010/10/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-to-religious-songs-in-soma/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas More Law Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review School Policy Banning Christmas Music
The challenged policy banned the performance of Christmas music, including simple instrumentals, during year-end holiday concerts; it forced the high school brass ensemble to “eliminate” “traditional carols” from its “repertoire”; and it banned the Martin Luther King (MLK) Gospel Choir, a student organization, from performing at the high school holiday assembly for the student body because the choir sang religious songs.
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=776
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals Court: School district can ban Christmas carols. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia has upheld a New Jersey school district's ban on religious songs during the Christman holiday season. In their ruling, three judges of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that such songs were once common in public schools, but that times have changed.

School choir forced to pull out of Christmas concert. A school choir was forced to withdraw from a Christmas event because organisers branded its carols 'too religious'. Around 60 children aged between seven and 11 had spent six weeks practising favourites including Once In Royal David's City and Silent Night for the Corringham Winter Festival. But they were let down at the last minute when their headteacher was informed their programme did not 'dovetail' with the festival's theme.

A New Jersey school system has been sued over its ban on traditional Christmas music. The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a parent and his two children, challenging the Maplewood Public School District's prohibition of all religious music. The lawsuit contends that the district's policy was implemented to prevent students and student groups from playing traditional Christmas music at school events during the 2004 holiday season.

Teacher takes "Christmas" out of carol. 2nd-graders will sing "winter" instead at an upcoming concert.

District bans instrumental Christmas carols. A school district's long-standing policy banning Christmas songs with religious references is under scrutiny after officials clarified that it includes the prohibition of the performance of instrumental numbers without lyrics. Instead of tunes about Jesus, and even Santa Claus, the 40-member Columbia High School brass ensemble will be limited for the first time to seasonal selections such as "Winter Wonderland" and "Frosty the Snowman," the Newark Star-Ledger reported.

http://www.akdart.com/christmas.html

By stating that it will not hear cases concerning religious music the Supreme Court is (defacto) upholding lower court bans.

Whether banning religious music is the correct call or not, I don't know. I only KNOW that calling the issue a Pandora's Box is an understatement.

regards,
Waddie

Gerarddm
11-27-2011, 12:11 AM
I think this is vastly overblown. I attended any number of holiday concerts when my daughter was in grade school etc where there was a mixture of both traditional Christmas hymns and Jewish music, for example, and nobody's nose was bent out of shape.

This was in Woodstock NY, though, perhaps more understanding and tolerant than other locales.

Waddie
11-27-2011, 12:26 AM
bobby, I agree with you that most of these examples are flawed and most without much merit. I was simply replying to John Smith who wasn't aware of any lawsuits, especially regarding religious music, so I posted a few of them as well, to clarify.

Religion in all it's expressions, including music, is always a source of controversy in this country, and many others. Perhaps the Christians do want it their way, as you suggest. But to think "it's no big deal to have some religious music" at the local school.........well, it could be....

regards,
Waddie

Meli
11-27-2011, 05:01 AM
aWhen my son was 4, he did a kinda concert.
We live in an area with a fairly large jewish population and quite a few muslims.
the "Christmas" concert did carols, Hanukkah songs a few general australian songs italian ang greek songs and a old arabic lullaby.
Everyone had fun.
It is made quite clear to parents before they enrol their kids that All creeds are celebrated low key,all kids participate or totally withdraw from the celebration.
I'm an atheist, but enjoy kids singing (in small doses :D)

It's only an issue if the school or kinda allow it to become one.

Common sense tells you if you are ultra anything you send your kids to a kinda or school of your persuasion

Meli
11-27-2011, 05:09 AM
.
um re the timing, Hanukkah and christmas overlap .do non or both.
Safest to stick to things like we wish you a merry christmas, or jingle bells or the wasshail song .
They are a bit less overtly christian than once in royal dirge and the Coventry carol is beautiful.

skuthorp
11-27-2011, 05:27 AM
Sounds like there's a few jonahs about with too much time and an angry attitude. As forgetting the Supremes, or indeed any lawyers involved, ludicrous and intolerant.

SamSam
11-27-2011, 01:47 PM
Supreme Court Says “No” to Religious Songs in SOMA
BY Erika Bleiberg | Tuesday, Oct 05, 2010 9:03am

......
By stating that it will not hear cases concerning religious music the Supreme Court is (defacto) upholding lower court bans.

Whether banning religious music is the correct call or not, I don't know. I only KNOW that calling the issue a Pandora's Box is an understatement.

regards,
WaddieI didn't read all those court decisions, but as a guess I'd say the courts weren't banning anything. They were only saying the schools had the right to ban stuff.


justices declined to take up an appeal of the school district’s ban


Appeals Court: School district can ban Christmas carols.



This is from the same Law Center quoted in some of your examples. The school boards can ban things, but you can always change the school boards and change their policies...

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban last year, and Stratechuk attempted to take the case to the higher court.

"There's nothing more, short of the school district changing its policy. There's no other legal avenue to take," Stratechuk's attorney, Robert J. Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., said.

S.V. Airlie
11-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Does this mean the USPS has to work on the 25th?

John Smith
11-27-2011, 03:57 PM
Does this mean the USPS has to work on the 25th?

Doesn't it?

ChaseKenyon
11-27-2011, 05:06 PM
The source of at least one of your 'facts' is full of.. non-facts.. Here's one "we have already seen, our founders were Christians.." Um, Survey says.. Baaaa! Sorry, our nations founders were _not_ Christians. They were mostly Deist's . Other references in the page follow the same format.. namely, "I already claimed this.. it proves that".. No, sorry.. You can not support 'Christian' claims by simply claiming 'Christians' are right. We've been thru this.. SamF is (in)famous for spewing this type of unrecognizable drivel.

+ 42 my friend

Sorry, our nations founders were _not_ Christians. They were mostly Deist's .
our nations founders were _not_ Christians. They were mostly Deist's .
our nations founders were _not_ Christians. They were mostly Deist's .

And yes many were also Freemasons. Freemason as I understand it require that you believe in GOD and do not prescribe any particular religion or sect of even Christianity.

Waddie
11-27-2011, 05:11 PM
SamSam;
I didn't read all those court decisions, but as a guess I'd say the courts weren't banning anything. They were only saying the schools had the right to ban stuff.

You're probably right. I wasn't attempting to take one side or the other, just show how litigious religious songs, and most everything else, can become. Choosing to have religious music at a public recital could go off without comment, but if anyone did object, you could have serious problems. That fear of possible litigation probably drives many a school and/or school board, to just say, WTF, let's just drop religious music, and other references to Christmas all together. And it's apparent the SC doesn't want to touch the issue with a ten foot pole. Whether decisions against the music on any level are the right thing to do or not, isn't for me to say. I'm not in their shoes. But we are a very litigious society.

regards,
Waddie

Keith Wilson
11-27-2011, 06:23 PM
Sorry, our nations founders were _not_ Christians. They were mostly Deists . I'd take issue with this; partly right, but not quite. A lot of them were Deists, to be sure, many of the more prominent ones, but there were a lot of fairly orthodox Christians too.

SamSam
11-27-2011, 06:26 PM
SamSam;

You're probably right. I wasn't attempting to take one side or the other, just show how litigious religious songs, and most everything else, can become. Choosing to have religious music at a public recital could go off without comment, but if anyone did object, you could have serious problems. That fear of possible litigation probably drives many a school and/or school board, to just say, WTF, let's just drop religious music, and other references to Christmas all together. And it's apparent the SC doesn't want to touch the issue with a ten foot pole. Whether decisions against the music on any level are the right thing to do or not, isn't for me to say. I'm not in their shoes. But we are a very litigious society.

regards,
WaddieYes we are. It's probably time to throw some of the pc people under the sleigh.

Waddie
11-27-2011, 06:35 PM
I'd take issue with this; partly right, but not quite. A lot of them were Deists, to be sure, many of the more prominent ones, but there were a lot of fairly orthodox Christians too.

The Great Awakening made the Christian religion a central part of most people's lives during the middle 1700's in Europe and the colonies. About 80% of colonists attended church. Some scholars credit the churches, also acting as meeting halls, with creating support for revolution. You just can't overestimate the value of some good old fashioned religious fervor.....Very, very, few were Deists, as Keith correctly points out.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html

regards,
Waddie

Durnik
11-27-2011, 07:27 PM
bobby, I agree with you that most of these examples are flawed and most without much merit. I was simply replying to John Smith who wasn't aware of any lawsuits, especially regarding religious music, so I posted a few of them as well, to clarify.

Religion in all it's expressions, including music, is always a source of controversy in this country, and many others. Perhaps the Christians do want it their way, as you suggest. But to think "it's no big deal to have some religious music" at the local school.........well, it could be....

regards,
Waddie

Cool. On to the music thing.. Music, for the sake of music, even if 'religious' in nature, is one thing.. Music, to proselytize, another. An honest, thinking person knows the difference. Let's stick to music, for the sake of music.. That could even be what the saying "Make a Joyful Noise onto the Lord" _really_ means! ;-)

Carol's at Christmas? Ok, but let's not forget other music as appropriate.. Including, say, "War is Over".. ;-)


I'd take issue with this; partly right, but not quite. A lot of them were Deists, to be sure, many of the more prominent ones, but there were a lot of fairly orthodox Christians too.

True, there were both orthodox (trinitarian) & non-orthodox (unitarian) Christians also involved.. & I did not mean to imply there were none. But many, perhaps, even most, were Deist's.. It is popular (for what may be called 'hardcore' or 'fundamentalists') Christians to imagine/claim that the countries founders were _all_ & _only_ Christians.. & I felt it my Christian.., Patriotic, I meant Patriotic! ;-) duty to indicate the error in that thought.

I separate Deist's from non-orthodox Christians as the former believe there is a Deity which has no concern for/contact with humans while the later believes otherwise.. This is something I suspect most modern Christians do not know about Deism..

FWIW, I ran across this interesting page (http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080695) recently..

it includes these paragraphs..


And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.

and especially, this..



... in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner.

Between you & me, I figure this message still might be important.. even if the country was founded, in part, by Deist's.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Durnik
11-27-2011, 07:34 PM
About 80% of colonists attended church.

Perhaps, but considering the punishments for _not_ attending church ranged from a simple fine on to pillories thru flogging, one has to wonder on the piety involved versus the wish to simply remain comfortably alive..

enjoy
bobby

SamSam
11-27-2011, 08:16 PM
... in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner.

Between you & me, I figure this message still might be important.. even if the country was founded, in part, by Deist's.. ;-)

enjoy
bobbyReligion doesn't need to be involved at all for that to be true.

Durnik
11-27-2011, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Durnik http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3213093#post3213093)

... in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner.

Between you & me, I figure this message still might be important.. even if the country was founded, in part, by Deist's.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby


Religion doesn't need to be involved at all for that to be true.

Truly, and I'm glad to see you note that.

I usually phrase it as "Religion must be not involved for that to be true".. any organization caring more about the continuation of itself than all else.. witness what organized religion has done thru the centuries..

Put another way, the presence of good people within a church is more a commendation on the good people than the church. Thru the years, the 'immoral' atheist/agnostic/heathen has a better record of having "fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner" than, for example, the Catholic or Protestant Church.. & done far less harm, to boot. Our own SamF is even proud to be an apologist for the Vatican sitting on vast wealth while Catholics (among many others) of all nationalities suffer for want of food, shelter & medicine.

This is not meant to denigrate any, regardless of affiliation or the lack thereof, who follow the teachings of christ.. but, I suspect that followers of christ are not likely to get their 'panties in a wad', so-to-speak.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Keith Wilson
11-27-2011, 09:42 PM
.Very, very, few were Deists, as Keith correctly points out. But that's not what I pointed out. Deists were a relatively small part of the general population, but a much larger proportion of the educated elite - and of those political leaders who fouded the US. Unitarians too, for that matter.

Waddie
11-27-2011, 10:17 PM
Waddie;
.Very, very, few were Deists, as Keith correctly points out.


But that's not what I pointed out. Deists were a relatively small part of the general population, but a much larger proportion of the educated elite - and of those political leaders who fouded the US. Unitarians too, for that matter.

Of course, I was referring to Deists as a percentage of colonial leaders, or Founding Fathers.. In that context they were a very small minority. I assumed that was also your context, but it obviously was not.


Deists, never more than "a minority within a minority," were submerged by evangelicalism in the nineteenth century.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html


In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-44)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-45) Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin), Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington).[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-46)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-47)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-48)

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

Once again you try to oversimplify things.

regards,
Waddie

perldog007
11-27-2011, 11:09 PM
IIRC it's not the law at all, but ISAS (Idiot School Administrator Syndrome), going overboard to not offend anyone, and managing to offend everyone in the process.

Whoah! wasn't expecting that much clarity from one so Berkleyfied. Well done! :D


I noticed at the Hospital in Morgantown W.V. that the chapel had no obvious symbols of Christianity or Judaism, but did have a "kneeling area" with a traditional prayer rug and sign pointing towards mecca.

The whole war on Christianity is an outgrowth of the progressive movement and the Islamists both trying to destroy something they don't like. Ironic, as those two groups won't find much to agree on once they have slaughtered all of the bronze age tribesmen and their flying spahgetti monster cult.

Durnik
11-27-2011, 11:09 PM
This is confusing.. First, you say


Of course, I was referring to Deists as a percentage of colonial leaders, or Founding Fathers.. In that context they were a very small minority. I assumed that was also your context, but it obviously was not.


when Keith _was_ referring to the percentage as founding fathers.

then you say



Deists, never more than "a minority within a minority," were submerged by evangelicalism in the nineteenth century.





While Keith said


Deists were a relatively small part of the general population, but a much larger proportion of the educated elite - and of those political leaders who founded the US.

So, Keith is correct.. While Deism was relatively small among the un-educated masses of what amounted to slaves (serfs, by any other name), "a minority within a minority", as it were , Deism was big among the relatively small educated population, of whom our countries founders came. Unitarians, AIUI, were the dominant 'Christian' religion..

Yes, Evangelicalism did take over, which is why I refer (elsewhere) to the big "C" Christian movement as a social control mechanism versus the little 'c' christian followers of christ.


BTW, the 'Controversy' over the Founding Fathers being Deists is present only within the ranks of Fundamentalists Christians who wish to deny it. As historical fact, it is quite unassailable. Perhaps the best place to see this is to peruse documents authored by the founding fathers. Yale, among other places has an extensive collection available on-line.

Oh, how I wish the i-net had existed when I were a young man!

BTW, "the 19th century submerging of Deism by evangelicalism" was in the century _after_ the founding of our country.. which was birthed in the 18th century.. mid 1700's and on..

enjoy
bobby

original post as follows




Waddie; .Very, very, few were Deists, as Keith correctly points out

.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Keith Wilson http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3213207#post3213207)

But that's not what I pointed out. Deists were a relatively small part of the general population, but a much larger proportion of the educated elite - and of those political leaders who fouded the US. Unitarians too, for that matter.




Of course, I was referring to Deists as a percentage of colonial leaders, or Founding Fathers.. In that context they were a very small minority. I assumed that was also your context, but it obviously was not.

Deists, never more than "a minority within a minority," were submerged by evangelicalism in the nineteenth century.



http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html

In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-44)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-45) Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin), Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and George Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington).[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-46)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-47)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-48)


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

Once again you try to oversimplify things.

regards,
Waddie

Durnik
11-27-2011, 11:14 PM
Whoah! wasn't expecting that much clarity from one so Berkleyfied. Well done! :D


I noticed at the Hospital in Morgantown W.V. that the chapel had no obvious symbols of Christianity or Judaism, but did have a "kneeling area" with a traditional prayer rug and sign pointing towards mecca.

The whole war on Christianity is an outgrowth of the progressive movement and the Islamists both trying to destroy something they don't like. Ironic, as those two groups won't find much to agree on once they have slaughtered all of the bronze age tribesmen and their flying spahgetti monster cult.

But no 'symbols' of Islam. I'm guessing the chapel also had pews for Christians to sit in. Equal treatment of _all_ religions, so no foul there.

enjoy
bobby

Waddie
11-27-2011, 11:26 PM
Durnik;
While Deism was relatively small among the un-educated masses of what amounted to slaves (serfs, by any other name), "a minority within a minority", as it were , Deism was big among the relatively small educated population, of whom our countries founders came. Unitarians, AIUI, were the dominant 'Christian' religion..

Deism wasn't "big" even among the educated. I was a passing fad, and Franklin finally discarded the idea. And it isn't only the fundamentalist's who discount the importance of Deism, so do scholars.

regards,
Waddie

Durnik
11-27-2011, 11:41 PM
Durnik;

Deism wasn't "big" even among the educated. I was a passing fad, and Franklin finally discarded the idea. And it isn't only the fundamentalist's who discount the importance of Deism, so do scholars.

regards,
Waddie

You've changed the subject. We weren't talking of the importance of Deism.. We were talking of the existence of Deism.. Further, some may wish it to be un-important, but it was, & is.. as it, more than orthodox Christianity, is where our countries original ideals came from.

enjoy
bobby

johnwill
11-27-2011, 11:50 PM
And what's with all the nativity creches in Mississippi having the 3 wise men dressed up in fireman outfits anyway?

You Yankee boys might not know it, but everyone down South knows the Three Wise Men came from afar.

Durnik
11-28-2011, 12:03 AM
the Three Wise Men came from afar.

;-)

Thanks!

enjoy
bobby

Waddie
11-28-2011, 12:17 AM
You've changed the subject. We weren't talking of the importance of Deism.. We were talking of the existence of Deism.. Further, some may wish it to be un-important, but it was, & is.. as it, more than orthodox Christianity, is where our countries original ideals came from.

enjoy
bobby

Numbers of Deists is EXACTLY what we were discussing!!!

regards,
Waddie

John Smith
11-28-2011, 07:54 AM
I'd like to bring this back on topic. Maybe I'm just one of the tolerant folks around, but I have no problem with carols in concerts in school because they have been a traditional part of the season for a long time. I'm not aware of other religions' songs of the season, but I'd include them also.

I think it's true that simply not allowing them is the easy way out, although I'd liike to think the people educating my children weren't so prone to taking the easy way out.

I see a huge difference between saying "under God" in our pledge or saying the Lord's prayer as a class and singing carols in a concert.

In fact, I think the carols are part of educating our children.

Sam F
11-28-2011, 09:00 AM
Banning carols (and Christ's mass too) is a Puritan idea. It's it nice to see our secular establishment doing the same thing.

http://www.timetravel-britain.com/articles/christmas/ban.shtml

Paul Pless
11-28-2011, 09:12 AM
I'm not aware of other religions' songs of the season, but I'd include them also.

Including Kwanzaa?

link (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=214262&title=kwanzaa-cheer-deck-the-halls)

Durnik
11-28-2011, 01:57 PM
I see a huge difference between saying "under God" in our pledge or saying the Lord's prayer as a class and singing carols in a concert.

Bingo!

enjoy
bobby

brad9798
11-28-2011, 06:40 PM
Christmas carols are not banned in my neck of the woods ... at school or otherwise. My high-schooler will sing plenty of them her chorale concert in two weeks ... :confused:

Waddie
11-28-2011, 07:09 PM
John Smith;
I'd like to bring this back on topic. Maybe I'm just one of the tolerant folks around, but I have no problem with carols in concerts in school because they have been a traditional part of the season for a long time. I'm not aware of other religions' songs of the season, but I'd include them also.

Apparently your qualification for being allowed into the public schools is "they have been a traditional part of the season for a long time". Then consider that there are lots of other Christmas traditions like Santa Claus, saying Merry Christmas, Nativity Scenes, Christmas trees, etc., that have also been a long time part of tradition. So has "In God We Trust (since the 1930's ?), posting the Ten Commandments and a prayer before Congress convenes.


I think it's true that simply not allowing them is the easy way out, although I'd liike to think the people educating my children weren't so prone to taking the easy way out.

You would prefer the litigious way out?


I see a huge difference between saying "under God" in our pledge or saying the Lord's prayer as a class and singing carols in a concert.
In fact, I think the carols are part of educating our children.

Isn't the source of all three religion, and aren't all three being expressed in the public domain?

SamSam
11-28-2011, 07:49 PM
You Yankee boys might not know it, but everyone down South knows the Three Wise Men came from afar.That reminds me of JC and the old standby, "Ring Afar".