What does it mean to be "liberal"

[Meadmaker]

I want to ask a question to anyone who agrees with Ken on the "Silent Night" discussion. The purpose of the question is to see where the objection to the song lies, and whether people have given it any real thought, as opposed to a simple knee - jerk reaction.

Which of the following do you think it is acceptable to perform at a public school concert?

An instrumental version of "Silent Night"?
An instrumental version of "What Child is This?"
An instrumental version of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy".
A vocal version of the same thing.
An English language vocal version.
"Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" (as far as I know, there are no lyrics in any language)
Handel's "Messiah".
"Here come's Santa Claus"
John Lennon's "Imagine".

If you don't want to go line by line, a discussion of how to select which songs are ok and which are not would suit me just fine. I think all of the above have religious implications, but the issues are slightly different for each one. More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

 

[thaiboxerken]

. More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

The ones that are religious aren't acceptable.

 

[JamesDillon]

What a classic case of useless double-speak. US voters choose or reject liberalism as they understand it as presented by politicians, pundits, media, etal.

As I said in the language you quoted, most professed liberals, including most politicians, media, pundits, etc., do not hold the super-relativist bastardization of liberalism that I described. I never said they did. Therefore I don't see what you're getting at.

 

[Meadmaker]

The ones that are religious aren't acceptable.

OK. One vote for "knee-jerk".

 

[drkitten]

Which of the following do you think it is acceptable to perform at a public school concert?

[snip]

If you don't want to go line by line, a discussion of how to select which songs are ok and which are not would suit me just fine. I think all of the above have religious implications, but the issues are slightly different for each one.

You've answered your own question. If all of the above have religious implications, then none are acceptable.

I disagree. I don't think that they all have "religious implications" in any serious sense.

More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

Case law is pretty clear on this one. Under Lemon vs. Kurtzman, to be acceptable, a government action must pass a three-pronged test.

(From Wikipedia):

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The selection of a religious song for a concert pretty much fails the first prong out of the box; why pick a hymn when there are plenty of non-religous songs around? What legitimate secular purpose is served by singing Silent Night instead of Jingle Bell Rock or I'll Be Home for Christmas?

 

[Tony]

OK. One vote for "knee-jerk".

How is that kneejerk? Do you think kids should be forced to sing songs about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard in public schools? That is the exact implication of what you're trying to argue.

 

[drkitten]

How is that kneejerk?

Probably because it disagrees with Meadmaker's opinion, and therefore cannot be well-thought out.

 

[gnome]

I actually find myself on the other side of this issue. When I was in junior high school, we were brought to the auditorium where there was a student production of holiday music and stage performances. One student performed a version of Silent Night that.... damn, it's messed up that I'm having trouble coming up with the words for it. It was a black-culture version of the song. I don't know if there is a preferred name for it and so I'll happily substitute in the future if someone offers it.

The point is, it was absolutely beautiful, and despite my being an atheist there was no offense whatsoever. I was exposed to the music and culture of other religions and cultures growing up--I don't see why including Christian songs crosses the line here. The problem is, I don't know where the line is. I wouldn't want your basic Christmas Pageant at a secular school, for example.

I wonder if applying something similar to the classic "obscenity" standard would help--that it has redeeming cultural or artistic value.

 

[Meadmaker]

How is that kneejerk?

Because it fails to address the question, which is how to decide whether a song is religious. All of the songs listed are religious songs, but do you really want to ban them all?

I like gnome's approach much better, myself.

 

[slingblade]

More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

You limited the question to a school concert, but my answer to it is going to be more general.

Schools have enough to do without worrying about anyone's religion, except in an academic sense.

It's not PC; it's logistics. I have to teach your kids how to use computers and the Internet, and teach them the ever-changing geography of the post-modern world, in addition to all the things we've always taught. There will be more things to learn next year, more new techs to master, and I'm going to keep running out of time. And possibly brain cells.

I don't get on their backs for chewing gum: instead, I have to make them put up their cellphones, and quit playing games on their hand-helds. I have to be able to detect the iPod earphones lurking under high collars and long hair. I have to figure out why some of the girls are losing weight at an alarming pace, or why that boy's eyes are chronically red--is it chronic allergies, or just the chronic?

I don't have time to worry about religion, when it's not my place to give a crap how, who, or what any of you worship or don't worship. I'm there to make sure your kid can read well enough to understand his Bible, or Quran, or Vedas, or whatever he reads in his belief system, not to read it to him, or tell him what it means.

In order to be equitable, it has to be either all religions or none, in school. You can't leave anyone out, or make anyone feel discriminated against. Otherwise, you're going to have to waste even more precious time answering civil suits and outraged parents. That's time I don't have; I'm busy teaching.

So I vote "none at all," and ask that you just let me do my job. If you want your kid to be religious, that's your job.

 

[Morrigan]

A song being religious does not mean the government is endorsing religion... that's just stupid. Especially if it's for a christmas event.

Sometimes the hysteria goes too far. Celebrating christmas has nothing to do with christianity, anyway.

 

[slingblade]

A song being religious does not mean the government is endorsing religion... that's just stupid. Especially if it's for a christmas event.

Sometimes the hysteria goes too far. Celebrating christmas has nothing to do with christianity, anyway.

 

[UserGoogol]

As I said earlier, I think the liberal position endorses religious freedom, and separation of church and state is a means to that end. I do not think having the government pick and choose what can be sung in chorus class constitutes much in the way of freedom, religious or otherwise.

But the government DOES pick and choose what can be sung in chorus class: public schools are a wing of government, although very much at the bottom rung of the system. Thus, everything that the school chooses to do is in a sense a choice of government.

I personally do not think there is a real problem in singing Christmas songs with religious content in school. The songs have cultural and aesthetic value and can be divorced from the content of their lyrics. But it is an issue which can't be waved away by saying "schools should be free to do whatever."

 

[Meadmaker]

In order to be equitable, it has to be either all religions or none, in school. You can't leave anyone out, or make anyone feel discriminated against.

I don't know if you can control how someone feels. No matter what you choose, somebody will feel discriminated against.

I am quite confident that if I looked at your reading list, I would find things objectionable to some religions, and I don't just mean that some weirdo wacko group might object. I mean that it is genuinely objectionable, contrary to the religious teachings of at least 5% of the population. Religious references are all around us and they pervade our culture. You can't get completely away. If you try, you'll be left with something so bland that it won't be worth learning.

The liberal approach would be to not banish anything from the classroom based on its religious content, but rather accept everything, and let the kids think for themselves.


And, whether or not you understood what she said, morrigan had a point.

 

[slingblade]

I don't know if you can control how someone feels. No matter what you choose, somebody will feel discriminated against.

I am quite confident that if I looked at your reading list, I would find things objectionable to some religions, and I don't just mean that some weirdo wacko group might object. I mean that it is genuinely objectionable, contrary to the religious teachings of at least 5% of the population. Religious references are all around us and they pervade our culture. You can't get completely away. If you try, you'll be left with something so bland that it won't be worth learning.

The liberal approach would be to not banish anything from the classroom based on its religious content, but rather accept everything, and let the kids think for themselves.


And, whether or not you understood what she said, morrigan had a point.

Last point first, I understood exactly what she said. I was laughing because the statement is too broad to make her point, especially to many christians.

Now, to address other points..."I" do not have a reading list. I am given a reading list, from which I may choose which books to teach. Sometimes I am required to teach certain books, like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Diary of Anne Frank." This probably varies in the U.S. from state to state, and even from district to district. But in my district, someone else makes up the reading list. There are many books I'd include and some I'd exclude, if asked, but I will not be asked.

Many kids are not taught to think. I wanted to have a short discussion about a couple of logical fallacies, and was informed it would be over their heads and I shouldn't even try. (I did it anyway, and they loved it.) I'm talking 17 and 18 year-olds here. Last chance for critical thinking before they enter the big, wide, fallacious world.....

Of course many texts (inclusive to mean anything one can read, including faces, advertisements, and cereal boxes) have some relationship to some kind of religion. The point is not to sanitize the classroom from all mention of any religion: the point is to make sure educators aren't promoting one religion (or for atheists, any religion) above others in such a way that students feel intimidated or discriminated against for having differing beliefs.

By "promoting," I mean conveying to students there is a "correct" way to believe, and saying or insinuating there is something "wrong" with a student who doesn't believe your way, or even at all.

I saw something very interesting during my student teaching fiasco last spring. In the classroom, my mentor was usually very careful to conceal her Christian beliefs, or to only discuss them when such discussion was truly relevant, which sometimes did happen with the various readings.

It was the "behind the scenes" action that surprised me. She was very judgmental about certain students she suspected weren't Christian, or weren't religious. She expressed pleasure to me that she had no "Muslins" [sic] in her classes, because she just didn't know how to act around "them." Certain other students simply didn't stand a chance with her, because she was sure they were not Christians by their behavior and dress. As far as she was concerned, these kids were just seat-warmers and would amount to nothing. I'm sure her attitude carried over into the classroom, as she virtually ignored these students. She just wasn't interested in teaching them.

She got on my case about my program director, who is lesbian. She actually got angry with me because I wouldn't denounce the woman and her "absence of morality."

What really blew her cork was finding out I'm atheist. Just a short time later, I was dismissed.

Then there was the middle-school teacher with whom I observed while she was teaching "Anne Frank." This lady had a Daily Prayer calendar displayed on her desk and turned towards the classroom. She had one of those clever carvings that reads "Jesus," but only when you look at it in just the right way. This was also on her desk.

During the study of Anne Frank, this teacher informed her class (long story, short) that Hanukkah is the day Jewish people celebrate the birth of Jesus. Not that it was a "Jewish kind of Christmas," or anything like that. It was the day the Jews celebrated Jesus being born. None of the students said a word, probably because they weren't Jewish and had not one clue. They just ate it up like....well, like gospel.

Yeah. Keep religion out of school.

 

[JamesDillon]

I could probably be persuaded that Christmas carols in school shows aren't really a big deal, and that no one is seriously harmed by them. But how do you draw a principled distinction between "Silent Night" in the talent show and a Nativity scene on the playground? School is a tricky situation because, to use Rawlsian concepts again, it is technically a part of the political realm, but it feels more like the background culture. While we may characterize the decision to, say, sing "Silent Night" in the winter pageant as a "political" one (and I think that characterization is ultimately accurate), it really isn't the sort of thing that one imagines is a cornerstone of the democratic process. Even though the strict principle of separation might seem unnecessarily draconian in this particular instance, it is well justified in general practice, and the fact that a few close cases exist does not, as I see it, warrant a departure from the general rule.

 

[Meadmaker]

OK. I usually associate the dog with mocking laughter, not genuine laughter. Most of the time I see it used on JREF, it's to make fun of what someone was saying. Sorry for the assumption.

My point about religion is that it is there. You can't teach "Anne Frank" successfully without teaching at least something about Judaism. The teacher who was trying was obviously doing a lousy job.

Sometimes, that might include going a little beyond the text, like explaining Jewish ritual and the effect of confinement on their ability to perform those rituals, and the signficance thereof. Sometimes, that might even involve singing a song, and that might offend someone. I say bring 'em on. Sing Silent Night, and follow it up with "Mi Chamoka" (it's not a holiday song, but it's a lot more Jewish than "Dreidl, Dreidl, Dreidl", and it sounds like "Chanukah")

But when you do that, there's going to be an awful lot of upset people around you. You had better have the law on your side when it happens.

And the standard objection would be that in a lot of communities, only Christian stuff would be sung. Yeah, that's true. But you've got to start somewhere. If you try to ban the whole thing, you're lost.

As a liberal, you want to be tolerant of eveyone. Too often, the problem of "equality" creeps in again. Instead of tolerance, you end up with equal amounts of intolerance toward everyone. Now, everyone's equal. That's the problem with banishing Silent Night out of the school districts. You start that way, and then you have to banish everything else, too. By the time you're done, everything that's left is innoffensive, like peanut butter on Wonder bread.

 

[JamesDillon]

I think there's a big difference between the academic study of religion, and the actual practice of it. I certainly agree that the study of religion's cultural and historic significance is an appropriate subject for the public schools; it would be impossible to develop an accurate understanding of the history of civilization without it. Certainly there would be nothing wrong with discussing the general beliefs and practices of Judaism while studying Anne Frank, and even singing songs or something like that would probaby be fine, and would almost certainly pass the Lemon test that drkitten discusses above.

It's an entirely different matter, though, when we're talking about the practice of religion. The principle isn't that we should avoid offending people, because you're right that that's too broad and subjective a standard. The principle is that the government must show respect for the individual consciences of citizens, and refrain from proselytizing or advocating for a specific religion over others. You might argue that singing "Silent Night" in school isn't really proselytizing, and, in light of my preceding post, I do see that point. However, the principle of separation is so important that it's worth preserving even against seemingly minor violations. Part of this is a slippery slope concern (which aren't always invalid), and part of it is the fact that singing Christmas carols in school really is an instance of state endorsement of a specific religious belief, and even if it's a relatively minor one, all the reasons that justify the principle of separation in the first place operate to preclude a permissive policy here.

 

[Meadmaker]

. But how do you draw a principled distinction between "Silent Night" in the talent show and a Nativity scene on the playground?

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".

 

[thaiboxerken]

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. Posting a nativity scene at a public schools is the equivalent of handing out bibles and requiring bible study.