As was responded, if "Imagine" could be claimed to be "atheistic," then one has a twisted vision of just what atheism is. After all, Lennon wasn't an atheist. Just because somebody disagrees with a particular religion's brand of supernatural geography doesn't mean that he's an atheist.
Let me rephrase, would that song mean an endorsement of anti-Xianity (and perhaps Judaism and Islam)? Certainly you can see it being offensive to some based on rejecting their religious tenets, can't you?
But I do find this pretzel logic quite interesting. Lennon's song would not be unconsitutional because he himself is not an atheist, despite the song clearly rejecting specific religious tenets of a popular faith. Yet Dion's song is unconstitutional as it is a religious performance because... why exactly?
She uses the word faith? Prayer? Up above? As far as I can tell it doesn't advocate any particular religion at all and even polytheists and buddhists could handle it.
So insult Xians, okay. Don't even insult atheists, except perhaps their intelligence, not okay.
There's such an argument to be made. Since such songs are not supposed to be sold to minors, one could say that they shouldn't be played to them without their parents' consent.
1) Would YOU be making such an argument? If not, what is your point?
2) If songs containing references to smoking, alcohol, drugs, or out of wedlock sex were not to be sold to minors, then there wouldn't be much of a rock scene at all. What Orwellian state do you live in that dictates such things cannot be sold to minors? The only thing I know off limits is
graphic language regarding sex or violence.
But since the school chose the venue, the format, and the speakers, then there is no way to deny that they are also sponsoring the speech.
But the SCHOOL DID NOT CHOOSE THE SPEAKER DEAR LIZA DEAR LIZA! Did any of you guys actually read the article, much less see how graduation ceremonies are planned?
Where I came from it was NOT THE SCHOOLS CHOOSING THE STUDENT SPEAKERS. It was the students, or a group of students who themselves had been chosen as reps by students. And no matter what happened at my school the article clearly stated that the girl had been chosen by students.
And I guess I'll point out once again, that the article also mentions that another student who spoke but did not submit what he was going to say first, delivered a speech with direct references to the Bible and biblical characters. Where was the outrage? None. Lawsuits? None. And if someone had sued the school, would they have been held accountable? Not.
You don't think the school is going to let the students choose a "disruptive" speaker, are you?
You guys keep trying to ride the slippery slope. You are correct that administrators will try to prevent disruptions. That does not make them selectors or employers, it makes them deselectors. There is usually a pretty large latitude on what the students choose.
A girl singing a Celine Dion song is not "disruptive" is it?
Recall the recent story about the pregnant girl who was barred from graduation who waited for the class to walk, stood up from the audience, stated her own name, and walked across.
I'm sorry, what is your argument here? Are you suggesting what the school did was right or wrong? Because it is only going to help your case if you think it was right. And that would be an interesting position for you to take.
I applaud that courageous girl going against a very wrong decision which schools should not be making.
By the way, just because a single school does something does not mean that is how all schools do or should do something.
Says who? Doesn't context let us know whether or not something is a religious ceremony?
Okay please detail how this would have been a religious ceremony.
No. You will note, I did not say "students." I said "graduation speaker." You do understand the difference, yes?
Yes. Change "student" to "graduation speaker" in my question and answer it, instead of dodging it with this kind of hokum.
Having been a speaker selected by a school, it is a job. Oh, you don't sign a W-2 or any such thing, but it's a job nonetheless. They demanded to see the text I was going to use and when they decided they didn't like it, they dropped me from the program. From what I can tell, it's because I wasn't offering a prayer. And this was at a public school.
1) Your school is not all schools, and as was shown in the article if you had even bothered to read what is being discussed the school in question did not demand, much less read, all of the GRADUATION SPEAKERS' text. It was just that the girl wanted to sing a song and submitted the lyrics for approval.
2) How does having one's text read and/or being rejected as a speaker make being a speaker a job, such that you are an agent of the school? You could just suck, like being removed from a skit performance being held by the school.
But when every line has a logical error, it is hard to be thorough and not do so.
You were not pointing out a logical error. You were asking me a question such as to create a criticism, which was answered by the following statements. There was only a void for a question to be asked since you did not read the next following sentences.
I guess it is easy to find errors (logical or other) when you don't read an entire argument, and insist on treating every sentence as an entirety.
I don't see a question there. I see some statements, but no questions.
Your question, not mine.
The freedom of religion trumps free expression. Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to preach your gospel. But not right here, not right now.
Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion, such that one has to be free of anyone stating that they might be religious or what they get out of religion. She was not suggesting that you had to convert now, or that you even had to have a specific religious notion. She was not preaching, nor singing a gospel song. It was a personal song about how she finds help in faith... a very generic faith, with the biggest issue being that she wants to find someone else to love.
Free speech means being able to speak freely.
She was not going to change how you live your life or worship based on a Celine Dion song. As it is you might point out to me where it tells me as an audience member which religion I am supposed to be turning to, now that having read the lyrics I am convinced that religion must be the way.
You realize that you are making the same argument that "intelligent design" isn't religion because it doesn't use the g-word.
Eh, no I'm not. If the claim is that she is performing some religious ceremony there would need to be more than references to "faith" in the song. Are you claiming George Micheal's song "faith" is a religious ceremony?
Strange, I have not witnessed one where the administration of the school does NOT choose students they believe reflect all the students and assign them what to say, editing out messages they feel they should not be endorsed by the school.
Wow, that really sucks for you. Is that true of all California high schools and colleges?
I guess I'm lucky to have grown up outside of domineering tyrannies. Then again, maybe its just that we had more guts. We definitely protested (including student walkouts and demonstrations) when we wanted change.
The movie "election" sort of showed how most speeches were controlled by administrators in schools where I was. They wrung their hands as students said things they didn't like. Heck, one of those speeches seemed ripped from one that I attended. (technical note: the speeches in the movie were for student council and not graduation ceremony, though they were equally "school functions").
Of course. But etiquette and the law demand that you do such at the appropriate time and place. Anything else is rude at best and a violation of rights.
Sorry, I don't speak Newspeak... threw out the dictionary they sent.
Tolerance and diversity are not defined by "etiquette and law". If that were the case then gays should find the appropriate time and place to show their form of offensive love (which IS offensive to the majority of people) and keep it in the closet... right?
Oh wait, no you are gay and so YOUR views and practices must be allowed to be practiced freely and people that think you are rude are just bigots and intolerant.
Keep spinning dude.
In reality (old speak) tolerance and diversity remain consistent: allowing others to express themselves even if it is not interesting or perhaps opposing one's views, while one gets to practice what one chooses to do even if others might find it boring or opposing one's views.
See, a gray world where everyone does what the "law" says and remain constrained so that no one else might get offended is not "diverse", it is "singular" and "conformed".
As soon as you start calling a person singing a song "rude", and demand they must stop, one has not exhibited tolerance.
Freedom TO, not freedom FROM.
Is her religious identity so fragile that she cannot go 15 minutes without delivering a sermon?
For a guy so insistent that he be able to call someone a liar for not getting facts straight, it is curious that you impugn the emotional stability of a girl using accusations which have no merit at all.
Can you please explain where you got the facts that she cannot go 15 minutes without delivering a sermon. I saw no mention of a timeframe nor anything regarding a sermon.
I have however seen some guy unable to contain his religious intolerance such that he ends up calling a girl he has never met a bunch of names, because he can't handle the idea of her singing a Dion song which mentions "faith".
Ah, I see...YOU are the ultimate authority as to whether or not something is a mountain or a molehill.
No, but clearly you two aren't. You are both hypersensitive and intolerant. Heck, both of you keep insisting it would have been a religious ceremony... based on what facts?
How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate?
How is this question relevant when the subject of conversation is not a worship service? If you want to know, I'd say holding a service of any kind as part of a school function would be unconstitional. Though being the tolerant type, I'd suck it up unless they got demeaning or preachy to me.
If this truly is such a small issue, then why did she make such a big deal out of it? If it were trivial, then it wouldn't have mattered for her to simply acceed to the request not to do so. Why do the people who are objecting to the display of religious pomposity always have to be the ones who suck it up? Why can't the fanatics ever be made to keep their yaps shut for once?
I do agree that it really wasn't worthy of a lawsuit. But people pick an choose their battles. As it stands she didn't feel it was worth pursuing a higher appeal on.
As for the last two sentences, yes you are intolerant and hypersensitive. She just asked to sing a Celine Dion song because she felt it was inspiring to her. Whoa.
Because YOU are the ultimate authority of when someone's rights are being violated. Apparently, it's OK for a person's rights to be violated if YOU don't mind.
Heheheh... yes. Or are you suggesting that YOU are the ultimate authority? That the courts are the ultimate authority?
As far as what the balance between rights is in this case, and the general fallout by choosing freedom FROM religion over the freedom TO speak, I do appear to have a better handle on things. At least I'm not calling this young girl names and questioning her stability.
What's next, we stick her pigtails in the ink well?
Indeed, but this isn't about whether she sang her comments or spoke them or decided to do an interpretive dance. This is about the content.
Really??? It's all about the CONTENT???? Crash admitted he never even looked at the lyrics, and you don't appear to have even read the article, much less the lyrics.
And it appeared to be the case that this was an overt religious ceremony.
No, no it didn't. Not even the principal said this. Please explain how singing a Celine Dion song is an over religious ceremony.
Then I guess "intelligent design" isn't really about god, then. They never use the g-word, after all
I didn't say a song couldn't be religious without using the word God. However to be a "religious ceremony" would require indications of some specific faith of some kind. This is so bland and generic (its a freakin' pop song) it could be from any religious or spiritual belief system. The only people who it might get lost on is atheists, though they might be able to agree with some of the other song's sentiments about life, and feeling a "faith" in something outside or inside themselves.
Certainly I am an atheist and I'm more put out by the prospect of hearing a girl butcher a song a cappela in front of a hot and sweaty crowd, rather than the text of that particular song.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
