What does it mean to be "liberal"

[slingblade]

You don't. You respond to each the same way. You want Silent Night? No problem. We'll follow it up with "Imagine". Nativity Scene? No problem. Where can we put the Maypole? Demand inclusion, not exclusion. You can't actually exclude it all, anyway. In honor of Easter, the Skeptics Society will have a library display honoring Carl Sagan. Not appropriate? Talk to my lawyer.

Seriously, your example isn't out of the bounds of reality. The school I taught at did things like that. But Carl Sagan isn't the Pope. Or an Imam. Or the Dalai Lama. I'd love more inclusiveness and less exclusion, absolutely! But I'm telling you, seriously and for true, time is the biggest enemy in this. Society, or more accurately, the "community," is such a close second, it's almost a tie.

Bear in mind, you have parents now who not only object to what you leave out (their religion), but who will object to what you include (someone else's religion). And as inclusive as you try to be, there's simply too much out there to potentially include. If you are going to be inclusive, you have to include even the minorities of one. If just one parent insists that you must be inclusive of his belief system, you'll have to try to accommodate it under an "allow them all" policy. Have you any idea how many folks there are who will insist you include some esoteric representation of their obscure (or newly-created) religion just to screw with the system? And under an inclusive policy, I'd have to let them.

Think also that there are certain religions to which parents will object no matter what. "I don't want my kids exposed to that _________ crap! It's Satanic, it's evil, it doesn't reflect our family values, our religious values, our national values!" Argh.

But understand that my biggest objection to this is not whether the parents are right, wrong, or indifferent.

It's that I don't. have. time. I don't have the time to add one more thing to my teaching day, and yet I am constantly handed new things to add anyway. And you want to add another when there's really no need? When religion can be served just fine outside the classroom? You want to give me one more thing, one more very important thing, to be responsible for?

Give me a break, please! Please? Pretty please?

One common response is that community and peer pressure will be against those demanding minority inclusion. You bet your sweet bippy it will be. Will there be fights? Yep. Bickering, strife. Yep. Those are all pretty liberal, too.

Yeah, I know, but under an inclusive program, I'll have to include them or get tied up in court trying to defend why I won't include them, why I'm discriminating against an obvious minority...dude, please.

Maybe, but I can "imagine".

Oh, I hear you. Really, I do. But honestly, if it means that much, you can send your kid to a religious school. You can even start your own school, with just your kids, or the whole neighborhood, and call it a charter school. You have alternatives besides asking me to do a job I'm not trained to do and don't want.

Besides, the school is my workplace. I'm an atheist. I don't want to have to come to work dreading celebrating yet another holiday to some imaginary figure instead of trying to educate my students. How much religiosity do you have to tolerate at work? I imagine the answer varies widely, and I also imagine some people put up with far more than they'd care to, but have nowhere they may appeal. Others would like to see more religion in the workplace, as long as it's their religion. And others, like you, may welcome everyone.

I can't think of any ill that will be corrected by adding more religion to our public schools, but I can think of several that will be created.

 

[bignickel]

Dang! If ONLY there was a place for children to go to sing xmas songs! Then they wouldn't have to be singing them in the school concert.

I wish such a place existed.

If there was such a place, then we wouldn't even need to discuss this matter, since it would be fairly obvious that THAT PLACE would be all the place they would need to sing xmas songs in.

 

[Meadmaker]

The hymnal "Silent Night" is sung by christians to praise the birth of their zombie-god, I can't see how requiring kids to sing it in choir is not a violation of the 1st ammendment.

Substitute "allowing" for "requiring" in the above. Does it still make sense?

To me, a liberal ought to require very little and allow a great deal. That's what the word means to me.

Slingblade,
As a practical matter, you're right. I certainly wouldn't demand inclusion of religious instruction as part of the curriculum. I just think there's a balance somewhere, where the incidental incidence of religion isn't a matter for adjudication. If you happen to pick a religious song for a concert, or read a religious story in literature, it shouldn't be a matter for the courts.

And of course, I think vouchers are a liberal idea, and I would have no objection to inclusion of religious schools in the programs, so long as they make some marginal effort to keep funding for specifically religious instruction separate, and separately funded. It seems more liberal to me.

 

[drkitten]

Substitute "allowing" for "requiring" in the above. Does it still make sense?

No, it doesn't.

Children in a school choir aren't "allowed" to sing anything, since they don't select their own music. Even if they are permitted to suggest songs, the choir director still needs to approve them (in large part because she needs to be able to get the performance rights, get the sheet music, and so forth).

You could make an argument -- in fact, such arguments have been made -- that children should be "allowed" to sing Christmas carols in a more free-form event such as a school talent show. The argument basically runs that in a talent show, the content is chosen by the individual students and represents their views as individuals, not the school choir director's as an agent of the state. And as long as the school stays strictly out of this and does not exercise editorial control (e.g. hasn't already gone on record as vetoing other songs as being 'inappropriate'), the courts have usually been receptive to that argument. Similarly, if you want to have a quote from the Bible printed under your picture in the senior yearbook, that's fine -- you are "allowed" to do that, as long as someone else can have a quote from the Koran, and someone else can have a quote from Mein Kampf.

However, a choir, esp. one billed as the South Bumblyberg High School Choir, is not representing the individual views of the students. It's representing South Bumblyberg High, a public agency and therefore a government entity.

 

[gnome]

You don't. You respond to each the same way. You want Silent Night? No problem. We'll follow it up with "Imagine". Nativity Scene? No problem. Where can we put the Maypole? Demand inclusion, not exclusion. You can't actually exclude it all, anyway. In honor of Easter, the Skeptics Society will have a library display honoring Carl Sagan. Not appropriate? Talk to my lawyer.

One common response is that community and peer pressure will be against those demanding minority inclusion. You bet your sweet bippy it will be. Will there be fights? Yep. Bickering, strife. Yep. Those are all pretty liberal, too.

But let's be real. Those things are going to happen one way or another. If the whole town is Christian, they aren't going to like the Jewish family more just because they were told they can't sing Silent Night.

And then, an awful lot of towns will banish those songs all by themselves. They'd rather not sing Silent Night, than allow you to sing them there Jew songs. It's a liberal approach. Everyone's free. "And tonight, we have a special request from a group of students who have prepared their rendition of 'Circles'. Let's welcome Skywise...."

Naive? Maybe, but I can "imagine".

This is my solution as well...

A similar issue cropped up in my last workplace--they decided to ban all personal Christmas displays because "If we allowed employees to decorate for Christmas, we'd have to allow them to decorate for all of the religions".

Yes, and the problem there is????

Were I in charge, the policy would be to allow employees any tasteful holiday display in their own space that did not interfere with their work.

 

[gnome]

Bear in mind, you have parents now who not only object to what you leave out (their religion), but who will object to what you include (someone else's religion). And as inclusive as you try to be, there's simply too much out there to potentially include. If you are going to be inclusive, you have to include even the minorities of one. If just one parent insists that you must be inclusive of his belief system, you'll have to try to accommodate it under an "allow them all" policy. Have you any idea how many folks there are who will insist you include some esoteric representation of their obscure (or newly-created) religion just to screw with the system? And under an inclusive policy, I'd have to let them.

This is a potential problem--and yet I don't see it as insurmountable. I have attended schools with an inclusive policy where this disaster did not occur... so you want to sing about your newly made up religion in our holiday musical? Go ahead (leads the unprepared agitator onto the stage) go for it, sing.

 

[slingblade]

Ah, if only it were just about singing songs.

 

[Meadmaker]

This morning I was on the road, so I was listening to talk radio,and a few issues relating to liberalism popped up.

First, there was the interview with the valedictorian whose microphone was turned off when she started talking about Jesus as a contributing factor to her academic success. Is that policy liberal? I think not.

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. As a liberal, I think you have to support the existence of these camps, but I had to laugh at the Triangle Foundation representative who was agitated at the host's concerns. He insisted that these were normal teens except for their sexual orientation, but there was no cause for concern. Hello? Normal teens? No cause for concern? Are people really that naive?

I vaguely recall being a normal teenager, which means there ought to have been plenty of cause for concern. Of course, the thing that kept me from losing my virginity before gaining my high school diploma was fear. Specifically, fear of pregnancy and Jesus. (I gave up Jesus some time later.) Somehow, I doubt that either one of those is a concern at this camp.

I just thought it was funny that this guy could keep from busting a gut laughing when saying that there were no issues of ses involved when a whole bunch of people who profess a sexual attraction for each other are sharing sleeping quarters. However, from a liberal perspective, you have to allow it. Just don't have any illusions about what's going to happen.

Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

 

[drkitten]

First, there was the interview with the valedictorian whose microphone was turned off when she started talking about Jesus as a contributing factor to her academic success. Is that policy liberal?

Yes, it is. A valedictory address is usually regarded as an official speech, at an official school address. The valedictorian was acting as an agent of the school in an official capacity, and as such, has responsibility to be neutral with respect to religion.

I think not.

You think wrong, then.

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. [...]
I vaguely recall being a normal teenager, which means there ought to have been plenty of cause for concern.

Why is there concern about the possiblity of gay sex at camp, but not of heterosexual sex? Basically, if the concerns about gay sex are enough for people to not want to allow a summer camp for gays, why do we allow a summer camp for straights?

It's the traditional "conservative" double standard, and its why liberals tend to oppose such idiocy.

Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective.

Liberal doesn't mean stupid. To the extent that behavior detracts from the functioning of an organiztaion, regulation of that behavior is fine, under any framework except for knee-jerk libertarianism. Restaurant cooks need to wear hats or hairnets because of legitimate public heath and safety concerns, and "personal expression" can go take a hike.

In broad terms, that's the first prong of the Lemon test -- does the prohibition serve a legitimate (secular) purpose? If a student dress code will enhance student academic achievement (which is of course the whole reason for the school in the first place), then dress codes are fine.

You seem to have this fixation with the idea that "liberal" can be defined on the single characteristic of "supporting freedom." It can't, except to the extent that freedom itself is a public good. There are lots of cases where either liberals or conservatives are bang-alongside the idea of restricting freedom, specifically in cases where some other public good is served by the restriction. You've been making this mistake since the opening post -- and it's not been doing you a bit of good.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is a potential problem--and yet I don't see it as insurmountable. I have attended schools with an inclusive policy where this disaster did not occur... so you want to sing about your newly made up religion in our holiday musical? Go ahead (leads the unprepared agitator onto the stage) go for it, sing.

What sort of inclusive policy was there, and how did it affect student life? Were they private or public? In the US?

 

[slingblade]

This morning I was on the road, so I was listening to talk radio,and a few issues relating to liberalism popped up.

First, there was the interview with the valedictorian whose microphone was turned off when she started talking about Jesus as a contributing factor to her academic success. Is that policy liberal? I think not.

I don't know, to be honest. I wouldn't have wanted to listen to her, but that's personal preference. I can get my diploma without attending graduation, so strictly speaking, I don't have to attend if I object. But then, I would be choosing to miss out on my own graduation. Could I manage to tolerate a few words about Jesus from a fellow student? I suppose I could.

Not that you said this--you didn't--but the situation would be very different if the school principal were the one offering such speech. Then it would absolutely be a matter of the state endorsing a religion.

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. As a liberal, I think you have to support the existence of these camps, but I had to laugh at the Triangle Foundation representative who was agitated at the host's concerns. He insisted that these were normal teens except for their sexual orientation, but there was no cause for concern. Hello? Normal teens? No cause for concern? Are people really that naive?

I think part of the thinking was that in most "all-girl" or "all-boy" sleepover camps, one assumes there will be no sex, because one assumes everyone's hetero. While an all-girl/boy homosexual camp would be equivalent to a mixed-gender hetero camp, where sex will obviously be going on every living minute of the day. I think that's naivete in the extreme--I went to an all-girls summer camp, and it was pretty obvious not every girl there was hetero, and not a few of them came to camp in hopes of meeting up. More power to 'em, I say.

Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

Uniforms. Very liberal. Poor parents don't have to try to buy a closet full of new school clothes; their kids don't have to suffer the indignities of not being able to afford those clothes; and the rich kids don't get to be snots by showing off their $200 jeans and $300 shoes.

See, in my mind, liberal isn't all about or simply about letting everyone do their harmless thing. It's also about trying to make sure everyone, regardless of race, class, religion, politics, gender, etc. has an equal opportunity to the same advantages, the same education, the same opportunities.

Letting everyone try to do his thing seems, to me, to be more restrictive, not less. In order to be safe and equitable in such an environment, one has to have more rules, not fewer.

I've told this little story before, but it bears repeating. I came to my conclusions about religion in school at a very tender age, and while I was still fully immersed in the Christian world. We still had mandatory prayer in my grade school, and the one Jewish kid who wouldn't pray was punished every day until his parents complained. That taught me that religion doesn't belong in such an uneven power structure as school.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uniforms. Very liberal. Poor parents don't have to try to buy a closet full of new school clothes; their kids don't have to suffer the indignities of not being able to afford those clothes; and the rich kids don't get to be snots by showing off their $200 jeans and $300 shoes.

See, in my mind, liberal isn't all about or simply about letting everyone do their harmless thing. It's also about trying to make sure everyone, regardless of race, class, religion, politics, gender, etc. has an equal opportunity to the same advantages, the same education, the same opportunities.

Letting everyone try to do his thing seems, to me, to be more restrictive, not less. In order to be safe and equitable in such an environment, one has to have more rules, not fewer.

I think I agree, but only partly, and for different reasons. But your post made me think about why I agreed, so thanks.

First, I don't think liberalism ought to be aiming for "equality" as a goal, and in fact I think that's where modern liberals have gone wrong. Somewhere along the line, someone decided it wasn't fair that we were different, and they would try to fix it. I think the real problem is the law sometimes created differences where none exist, such as by stating that black people shouldn't drink out of fountains with white people. Blacks and whites drink pretty much the same, so there's no reason for a distinction to be made. However. when law recognizes or allows differences, such as between rich and poor, I don't see a problem.

So, dress codes that seek to limit rich kids from showing off 300 dollar shoes don't strike me as liberal, at least not on the grounds that they make something "fair" or "equal". They limit freedom and erase differences. It's not very open minded to say that you can't wear the clothes you like.

Also, several callers to the morning talk show expressed support for dress codes because "it wasn't right for kids to wear...." (fill in whatever happened to offend that caller. Usually it was clothes that were either too expensive or too sexy.) That seems to voice a personal preference, and forcing your personal view of right and wrong doesn't seem liberal.

However, if liberal policies are those that allow us to advance our core values, as opposed to our individual concepts of ethics, then a policy that allowed us as a society to do that could be liberal. Education is a core value of our society. Therefore, anything that advances education could be a liberal policy. If student clothing is interfering with the ability to teach or learn, then it could reasonably be called liberal to regulate that clothing. It's liberal because it is open minded, tolerant, and advances freedom. Dress codes that remove distractions, whether social or sexual, could be considered liberal.

And I think that might be the key, for me, to the religion question. A liberal ought to tolerate religion, but depending on the culture of the school, the controversy surrounding Silent Night or Prometheus might be sufficiently distracting to just make the administration give up and declare a ban on everything, so as to avoid the distraction.

 

[gnome]

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. As a liberal, I think you have to support the existence of these camps, but I had to laugh at the Triangle Foundation representative who was agitated at the host's concerns. He insisted that these were normal teens except for their sexual orientation, but there was no cause for concern. Hello? Normal teens? No cause for concern? Are people really that naive?

I vaguely recall being a normal teenager, which means there ought to have been plenty of cause for concern. Of course, the thing that kept me from losing my virginity before gaining my high school diploma was fear. Specifically, fear of pregnancy and Jesus. (I gave up Jesus some time later.) Somehow, I doubt that either one of those is a concern at this camp.

I just thought it was funny that this guy could keep from busting a gut laughing when saying that there were no issues of ses involved when a whole bunch of people who profess a sexual attraction for each other are sharing sleeping quarters. However, from a liberal perspective, you have to allow it. Just don't have any illusions about what's going to happen.

Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

I don't think that, as a liberal, it's wrong to dissalow something when there's a proven practical reason to, rather than a political or discriminatory reason. One need not sacrifice practicality for an ideal. I too see a problem with a teen's camp for homosexuals, specifically regarding the sleeping quarters--for a "heterosexual" camp, you can separate the genders and keep a reasonable lid on things. Impossible for the opposite case.

On the other hand, I think the "liberal" solution would be to have a camp that wasn't exclusively for one or the other--take advantage of the practicality of separating by gender (since heterosexual is the majority), and count on supervision to handle most of the rest of the risk.

As far as slogans and dress code--there is nothing inherently "liberal" or "conservative" about choosing to disallow clothing or slogans that might reasonably cause disruption.

 

[gnome]

What sort of inclusive policy was there, and how did it affect student life? Were they private or public? In the US?

United States, public school. in my county, Christmas songs weren't banned, and we saw the occasional inclusion of alternate cultures or religions in our assemblies. While I'm sure there was an occasional controversy, it all seemed pretty reasonable to me. The only time I ever objected was when one of my Earth Science teachers was an avowed Creationist. He gave lip service to evolution, but set Biblical creation in opposition to it and presented them as equally valid. He specifically mentioned he preferred the Biblical story.

In all honesty, I didn't mind a teacher or two that didn't accept Evolution, but a science teacher, an Earth science teacher in particular, should have learned enough facts, and understand the scientific method well enough, that they know better.

My astronomy teacher in college had the best attitude--he pointed out that science and religion need not be in conflict... Science explains how something seems to have happened; and leaves the why to religion and philosophy.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Being a liberal means you eat babies, just ask a conservative.

 

[brodski]

Being a liberal means you eat babies, just ask a conservative.

I did, but I couldn't hear his answer because his moth was full of puppy.

 

[hammegk]

Being a liberal means you eat babies ....

Freshly aborted being first choice....

....just ask a conservative.

You did.

 

[brodski]

Freshly aborted being first choice....

Actually we prefer them still kicking and screaming, they keep their flavor better that way.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think gnome has a pretty sensible approach on the school issues.

I think (pseudo) liberals have gone too far when they equate having to deal with daily prayer, and having to deal with either singing a song or opting out.

In my high school, we had pretty much 0 religious minorities. We had a Christmas Concert every year, where we didn't sing any Hanukah songs. (Hava Nagilah was part of a world folk music set in junior high.) On the other hand, I can remember an occasional Christian complaint when we did "Dracula" and "Dark of the Moon" in theater. There weren't too many complaiints. No picketing or that sort of thing, and no one took them seriously. On the other hand, if we had not been allowed Christmas songs, I suspect there would have been a greater uproar.

For a more modern take on it, find the threads and news coverage of the Bennett Colorado music teacher fired for showing Faust this winter. At least, that's what the news coverage said. She was really fired for angering the community by not allowing Christmas songs, which led to a long standing dispute, making some people out to get her, and then latching on to anything they could. When she showed Faust, the outcry was more or less, "It's ok to show Satan, but not Jesus?!?" It's ridiculous, but when you start down that path of deciding what is and isn't ok, that's where you end up.

I can't come up with a logical reason why "Silent Night" is taboo, but "Faust" is ok.

 

[slingblade]

Freshly aborted being first choice....

Fer cryin' out loud, there's no meat on those! Barely an appetizer. An hors d'or...hors d'ove...an appetizer.