Public school controversy over singing Muslim worship song.

[eXcommunicate]

But as a learning exercise, in a music class room, religiously-themed music must be approached and studied. There is no way around it, especially in a choral setting.

Have you estimated the proportion of religious to non-religious music available?

I would have thought at least 99% of available (english, singing) music is non-religious.

If you want to sing pop songs, sure. But that is not the tradition of choral music in this country.

[HomerJay]

[eXcommunicate]

I'm guessing you're asking if it would be "okay" to learn this song as an extreme example to knock a hole in my argument. If I were a choir director, I might see the value in teaching the song, maybe in conjunction with other ideologically-based anthems. I think such things should be at the discretion of the choir director. If a majority of parents or students object, then that's one thing. In the example that started this thread, one student objected. Well, he can sit out the song then. We should not shy away from teaching controversial subjects in our schools for fear of offending someone.

[charlou]

My post about the supermarket where I work playing exclusively christian themed music was tangental to this discussion.

A choir is entirely different to a supermarket. Choir participants are performers, and the audience receive the performance by choice.

An Australian supermarket provides a completely different kind of service. Religious agenda, cultural exclusivity, insidious moralisation, are not part of that service.


red, loved your post re supermarketing. Nail on the head stuff.

[charlou]

^ Talking about choir participants and audiences who do have a choice, btw. Pretty sure that's not always the case when it comes to children/students.

[hadespussercats]

My post about the supermarket where I work playing exclusively christian themed music was tangental to this discussion.

A choir is entirely different to a supermarket. Choir participants are performers, and the audience receive the performance by choice.

An Australian supermarket provides a completely different kind of service. Religious agenda, cultural exclusivity, insidious moralisation, are not part of that service.


red, loved your post re supermarketing. Nail on the head stuff.

I don't think there's anything wrong about complaining to the manager about music in his store. I'm honestly confused why anyone would think there's a problem with that. Particularly if you're working there and don't have the option to just go somewhere else.

I think he would have been within his rights to say no to you, but I think it's a sign he's a manager that cares about his workers that he didn't.

And you're right-- it's a different situation.

[hadespussercats]

^ Talking about choir participants and audiences who do have a choice, btw. Pretty sure that's not always the case when it comes to children/students.

Well, clearly students can choose to sit this one out-- isn't that what the Christian student did?

I've yet to hear of a mandatory school choir here in the States. (That doesn't mean they don't exist-- just that I've never heard of one.)

[Animavore]

^ Talking about choir participants and audiences who do have a choice, btw. Pretty sure that's not always the case when it comes to children/students.

Well, clearly students can choose to sit this one out-- isn't that what the Christian student did?

I've yet to hear of a mandatory school choir here in the States. (That doesn't mean they don't exist-- just that I've never heard of one.)

No. I think he left the whole choir class altogether and threw a big hissy.

[hadespussercats]

^ Talking about choir participants and audiences who do have a choice, btw. Pretty sure that's not always the case when it comes to children/students.

Well, clearly students can choose to sit this one out-- isn't that what the Christian student did?

I've yet to hear of a mandatory school choir here in the States. (That doesn't mean they don't exist-- just that I've never heard of one.)

No. I think he left the whole choir class altogether and threw a big hissy.

Yeah. He even said something about the converse being forcing a Muslim choir to sing a Christian song-- "'I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth.'" As though their school choir were Christian. And as though force were involved.

Here's a quote from the article: "He [a spokesman for the school district] also emphasised that membership of the choir was voluntary, and said that singers were able to opt out of singing any particular song."

I don't see the problem here.

[Coito ergo sum]

American Atheists: https://atheists.org/Testimony_to_US_Ci ... Commission

Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1980)
Roger Florey, an atheist, filed suit against a local school district's holiday programs, claiming that singing of religious carols during Christmas concerts, like "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful," were a violation of the separation of church and state.

The Florey case ended with the school districts use of religious Christian songs being upheld.

And, in New Jersey, a ban on religious songs at concerts was upheld by the courts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/0 ... 51839.html

[Seth]

Seth, I didn't ask or insist or demand that the music be turned off, I stated my opinion about it and the manager turned it off.

Your opinion is a selfish, intolerant, arrogant one that disrespects the rights of the majority to listen to religious music in public places during a religious celebration season. You don't like it, wear earplugs or get another job. You have no right whatsoever to be free "from" religion in either public or private spaces.

I don't like rap music, but I wouldn't presume to object to the owners of a hip-hop music store or culturally ethnic clothing store (or any other store for that matter) to play it. I'd keep my opinion to myself and go shop somewhere else if I found it offensive.

Wait a second, Seth.

Her opinion is no more selfish, intolerant or arrogant than the opinion of the person who likes that sort of music, or the opinion of the store manager who decided on the music selection in the first place.

Sure it is, she's an Atheist.

The record for intolerance and arrogance is still held by the religious. Nobody can hold a candle to them. Thankfully, in the West, religion has been relatively de-fanged. We have but to look to the Muslim world, and see the true specter of arrogance and intolerance -- a shade of what western religion once was, and what we must steadfastly guard against.

Yup. Can't dispute that. One would think that the supposedly intellectually advanced atheist would not choose to emulate the worst aspects of religion however. That they do indicates again that they are just as religious (and intolerant) in their beliefs as, well, Muslims. That's certainly true of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, to an even greater degree than any religious group in the history of the world.

People aren't required to keep their opinions to themselves. If they were, one of the first opinions to keep to yourself would be the one you just expressed, in my view.

Indeed. Precisely. I have every right to excoriate her as being selfish and arrogant in the same way as she has a right to complain about religious music. And you have a right to excoriate me for excoriating her. Sauce, goose, gander.

Yes, and her opinion so voiced is not selfish, intolerant or arrogant. Yours is.

Depends on who you ask I suppose. It's unsurprising that an Atheist would come to the defense of another Atheist and hold that opinion (which is wrong, by the way...).

It's just that I choose to excoriate her for her selfish and arrogant complaint because, well, somebody has to do it and it's not like Atheists don't deserve to be excoriated for their intolerance, bigotry, hatred, lies, selfishness, arrogance and disrespect.

If you dish it out, you have to take it.

Believe me, nobody doubts your ability to dish it out, or the ability of religious folks to dish it out. They've been dishing it out for thousands of years, and they never miss an opportunity for intolerance/bigotry (anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-apostate, anti-sex, anti-you name it), lies (hell, hades, gehenna, routes to salvation, etc.), arrogance (WE know the way, the truth and the light, and there is only one true.....), and disrespect (you just showed it).

Selfishness, they aren't always - since there are a lot of religious folks who can be charitable. I'll give 'em that one.

And that justifies Atheists emulating those bad behaviors how, exactly? I thought you held yourselves to a higher ethical and moral standard. Evidently not.

[Coito ergo sum]

I deny your premise that atheists emulate those behaviors.

Atheism isn't an ethical standard, nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism. That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying. Atheism is not morality or ethics, nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist. Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to. They differ in philosophy up and down the spectrum -- some are far right, some are far left, some are objectivists, some are nihilists, some are existentialists, some are marxists, some are capitalists, some are every different moral, ethical, philosophical and political view that one can imagine with the exception of those views that require beliefs in a god or gods.

[Seth]

An Australian supermarket provides a completely different kind of service. Religious agenda, cultural exclusivity, insidious moralisation, are not part of that service.

Well, self-evidently you're wrong. What leads you to the silly belief that you get to dictate to your employer what their "service" is?

Besides, what's wrong with a supermarket offering religious music, cultural support or moral lessons to their customers? If their marketing plan does not meet with the approval of their customers (their employees have no say in the matter and need to belt-up and do their jobs) then their customers will either let them know of their displeasure or will stop doing business with them.

If the owners of the supermarket chain want to festoon their stores with Catholic icons and crucifixes and have regular prayer meetings for customers and offer an on-staff Catholic priest who will hear confession and give communion to their customers, it's their absolute, unquestionable right to do so, and it's certainly not within the purview or authority of an employee to complain about it, no matter how religiously zealous they may be about their own beliefs.

Heck, if they mandated that the company uniform for floor employees is a monk's habit, sandals and a tonsure, that's within their right too.

I'd have told you once to keep your mouth shut about marketing and store music and do your job and I'd have fired you for insubordination in a heartbeat if you complained again.

[Seth]

I deny your premise that atheists emulate those behaviors.

Of course you do, but that doesn't change the obvious facts.

Atheism isn't an ethical standard,

It's precisely that for many religious Atheists.

nor is a high or low ethical standard required or a part of atheism.

That's not what Atheists keep demonstrating in their behavior and rhetoric.

That's the bullshit you keep trying to sell, but it's not flying.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. My arguments are soaring, and every time you deny that Atheism is a religion, they soar that much higher because anyone with half a brain, including some prominent Atheists, recognize the congruence between atheistic belief and practice and religion.

Atheism is not morality or ethics,

Sure it is. Moreover, it's most often self-righteous, snooty, arrogant, dismissive, disrespectful and downright hostile in its proclamations of the supposed moral and ethical superiority of Atheists.

nor is any particular code of morality or ethics required to be an atheist.

That much is absolutely true, which is why Atheists are rightfully mistrusted and kept from political power. Most Atheists have very situational ethics and morals, and the fact that there is no steady moral structure to Atheism is one of its great dangers, as we can see from the hundred million people murdered by Atheists in the last century.

Some atheists are good and some are bad, and sometimes it depends on who you ask whether they are considered good or bad.

True enough, though the latter seem to outweigh the former in my personal experience, at a rather alarming rate.

Other than agreement on the basic idea that there aren't any gods, or at least that insufficient evidence exists from which to conclude that there are any gods, there isn't a "we" that atheists belong to.

Sure there is. Atheists are by and large collectively drawn to and identified by their intense hatred of religion and their rabid, frothing attacks on people of faith and religion in general. It's as obvious as the nose on your face when viewed objectively, which is why people of faith are rightfully suspicious of Atheists from the get-go. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are certainly few and far between in these sort of fora.

They differ in philosophy up and down the spectrum -- some are far right, some are far left, some are objectivists, some are nihilists, some are existentialists, some are marxists, some are capitalists, some are every different moral, ethical, philosophical and political view that one can imagine with the exception of those views that require beliefs in a god or gods.

And whatever their political or other philosophical beliefs, every single self-identified Atheist I've ever met, or corresponded with is bound inexorably together with every other religiously zealous Atheist by their rabid intolerance and visceral hatred of other organized religions and their mean-spirited, hateful, bigoted and spiteful attacks on people who believe in God for no better reason than mindless antipathy towards the object of their devotion.

You can deny the truth all you like, but the truth remains observable by those with open (as opposed to closed) minds, and it's an ugly truth indeed when it comes to Atheist religious zealotry.

[Coito ergo sum]

An Australian supermarket provides a completely different kind of service. Religious agenda, cultural exclusivity, insidious moralisation, are not part of that service.

Well, self-evidently you're wrong. What leads you to the silly belief that you get to dictate to your employer what their "service" is?

Customers demand things of their employers all the time. It's up to the employer to assess whether their business needs warrant catering to the customer's wants and desires. If customers of Store X don't like the music that is being played, it's incumbent upon them to let the proprietor know.

Besides, what's wrong with a supermarket offering religious music, cultural support or moral lessons to their customers?

That depends on what music, what support and what moral lessons, and various persons are going to have different opinions as to which are right and which are wrong. If they're offering religious music like Zikr and cultural support like "build ground zero mosques" and offering moral lessons to their customers like, "down with the infidel," then I would say it's wrong, in my view. I'd either not shop there anymore, or tell the proprietor, or both. I'd exercise my free speech to oppose their moral lessons and music. That's how society works. The store's right to do as they please doesn't trump everyone else's right to do the same.

If their marketing plan does not meet with the approval of their customers (their employees have no say in the matter and need to belt-up and do their jobs) then their customers will either let them know of their displeasure or will stop doing business with them.

Employees can say whatever they want. Of course, employers don't have to keep them on. But, to say they have "no say in the matter" depends on the employer - -maybe the employer likes his employees and offers them a say. Maybe YOU wouldn't give your employees a say, but many employers are open to their employee's suggestions and input. Employees certainly have no legal obligation to "belt up" as you say, or hold their tongues).

If the owners of the supermarket chain want to festoon their stores with Catholic icons and crucifixes and have regular prayer meetings for customers and offer an on-staff Catholic priest who will hear confession and give communion to their customers, it's their absolute, unquestionable right to do so,

It's every individual's absolute right to question their actions. Their actions are not "unquestionable." Their actions are VERY -- HIGHLY - questionable.

and it's certainly not within the purview or authority of an employee to complain about it, no matter how religiously zealous they may be about their own beliefs.

What planet are you living on? An employee can complain about whatever he likes. It's a free country. He can't compel the employer to take action, but the employee has every right to complain. Depending on his contract with his employer, the employer may not have to keep the employee on, of course.

Heck, if they mandated that the company uniform for floor employees is a monk's habit, sandals and a tonsure, that's within their right too.

And, it's the employee's right to refuse, and even go to the news and complain that the employer's exercise of its rights was unfair and ludicrous.

I'd have told you once to keep your mouth shut about marketing and store music and do your job and I'd have fired you for insubordination in a heartbeat if you complained again.

And, if I worked for an employer like you, I would quit and take as many employees with me, and I'd write complaints to the better business bureau, and I'd start a website protesting your establishment and urging people to boycott your store because your employment practices were not to my liking.