Depends on context. As sung in the way that John Lennon did it, no.
The question gave the context of a teen using up time alotted at a mic on graduation day. Now answer the question.
John Lennon's song is not an atheistic song because Lennon is not an atheist. He was speaking to his own spirituality and thus, it cannot be an atheistic song as he envisioned it.
I see, then it would be unconstitutional because it was religious in nature. My mistake.
No, it doesn't. It simply asks you to imagine.
Hey, dude. I know the song and I get what he is saying. He asks you to imagine that there are no things that certain religious types hold quite true, and then suggests that without such "trappings" the world would be a better place.
I really like that song, I really like his message. But I'd be less than honest if I were to say that it did not suggest the denial of certain religious tenets and so be offensive to some people on religious grounds.
From what I can tell, nobody here knows what the song was.
I did, others may not. I do not understand the Italian parts (or whatever the other language is).
but this is a pretty big text to have to overcome contextually to make it something other than a great, big paean to god.
What god? Can you honestly tell me what God, or Gods, or religious tenets I am to ascribe to? Your assertion was that this song was a religious ceremony, a worship service. I think the text shows that it is clearly not such a thing.
It is a general (rather bland) exercise in describing her feelings about faith.
That the generic entity which gives it to her appears to be male, and above, is hardly going to make people of various religions upset.
My guess is Dion is probably Xian and so the entity she gets her faith from is God (though I am not certain it is the evangelical God), and the girl appears to evangelical so my guess is her inspiration is that God. But to a crowd of people who have little idea who she is, the text could mean anything.
In any case, it is NOT a service.
Not mentioning god is not an insult.
Demanding that others never mention God, including during moments where they are going to express personal emotional opinion (like say a graduation ceremony) is an insult.
I agree there is a degree of mentioning religious belief where it crosses into disruptive behavior... proselytization.
Mentioning God is not always that and not always an insult.
That's a problem rabid atheists have, they believe any mention of personal faith is an insult and often a violation of their rights.
So? Since when did the world need to be for children? Why can't the adults have something that isn't for the kids?
How does this answer my point at all? There is no truth to your statement that songs with such content are currently prevented from sale to minors. Deal with the point.
On a wholly new topic, you are now fully advocating censorship, even outside the state facilities? Scratch a kneejerk liberal, find a fascist!
The students can nominate whomever they wish. It doesn't mean diddly. The administration has final say and reserves the right to change any speaker for any reason. It's their ceremony.
Gee, I guess that's why I already said that I had changed my position on the ruling. Since they usually have the power to deselect for various reasons, being overcautious could be one of their valid reasons.
What that does not mean however, is that if they had allowed the girl to sing, that she would have been an agent of the state or selected by them to give a specific message which they endorse.
Just because an entity refuses to invoke a proscriptive power they might have, does not mean they endorse everything which passes through.
Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that if the students chose a speaker the administration couldn't abide, they'd simply bow to the will of the student body and not assert their right to determine any and all actions that will take place at said ceremony? Just who do you think is running the show?
Yes, WHERE I CAME FROM, a speaker DID get on that the administration didn't abide because of student pressure. There were also things SAID that they did not like.
Yes, they would not allow a disruptive event to occur. They even threatened to withhold diplomas for those who were rumored to be planning a particularly disruptive event.
Because they prevent disruption is not the same as having specifically chosen speakers nor forced words into their mouths, or nixed all words with which they might not wholly agree.
Boo hoo if your schools weren't like that, guess your schools really sucked.
Heck I was at one school function in Europe where a girl used the word "fuck" and overtly suggested she gave good blowjobs in a song. My guess is the administration wasn't endorsing that, but they ALLOWED it.
ALLOWANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ENDORSEMENT.
Constitutional rights are violated only if someone complains? How many students must be present for a school-sponsored religious ceremony to be unconstitutional?
No, rights can be violated even if no one complains, and I already answered the question about numbers needed to be present.
Strange, that's not what the SCOTUS said. You do recall the lawsuit against the students who used the PA system before the football games to deliver prayers. The speakers were chosen by the student body and yet the court still found that it was unconstitutional for the school to engage in such activity.
That is a different case and a different context. For a guy so hot for context, how could you miss the huge difference?
In the graduation ceremony an individual is stating their own personal feelings at that highly emotional moment, about their experiences, and their futures. It is an individual and isolated event.
Having prayers at football gameS, shows that it is an ongoing practice that is not an individual reflecting at a moment of posterity and (most importantly) is unquestionably a religious service.
So how does that make the people on that stage something other than agents of the school?
Allowance does not equal endorsement, it does not equal selection, it does not equal coaching of material. That's why people allowed on a stage do not act as agents of the school.
Given the specific lyrics and the specific singer involved, there is no doubt that this is a religious song.
It would then be up to the girl to show how she could make it something other than a religious song.
You could actually tell me what religion she was advocating? Those words could be accepted by most religions and generally spiritual people. It was generic.
Just because it contains a suggestion of personal religious belief (which I agree it certainly does) is not tantamount to a religious service. This was a vague description on the importance of faith to this girl. A very bland generic faith, and not of any set tenets.
Oh, they give the students the illusion of having some control over the events, but it is still an illusion. Nothing happens on that stage without it being choreographed by the administration. It happened to me, after all. I got yanked. If you think the administration ever leaves anything up to someone outside their control, you've got another think coming.
Heheheh... a definite view behind the curtain. In any case, your school is obviously not all schools. Though I would hope mine would have had the good taste reflected in the decision your school made. I can only imagine all the sighs, blinks, chuckles and ad nauseum statements that would have been inflicted on a poor unsuspecting audience.
A graduation speaker, however, is one who has been vetted by the administration. One who has been specifically given a platform with which to speak and one where if any of the students in the audience were to interrupt and tell the speaker to shut up, sit down, get off the stage, etc., would be rightfully ejected from the ceremony.
WRONG. That will depend on the school. Vetted to some degree, yes. Selected and made sure everything they say is in line with school endorsement... no.
As it happens there have been cases of people who have been interrupted and ejected from the ceremonies, including people specifically asked by the administration to come and talk. One recent incident was a veteran who decided to criticize the Iraq War during an address he was invited to give at graduation and "vetted" by the officials.
Irrelevant. She submitted the lyrics for approval and was turned down by the right of the school. What's her beef?
Actually this is why I changed my opinion about the decision and stated so a while back. Given all the reasons the principal has for violating people's rights to free speech, overcautioun with respect to church/state issues would seem to be valid.
So her beef was pretty small.
That does not however mean that if he had allowed it, it would have violated anyone's constitutional rights.
Oh, and to your comment, the administration asked her for the lyrics. She just said she wanted to sing (with another student). The administration then asked for a copy of the lyrics.
Oh, I apologize for shortening it so that I didn't explain why she submitted the lyrics. Not that it matters one bit to this conversation.
But at the time you wrote your statement, I hadn't entered the discussion. How could it possibly have been my question? Come on, holmes, try to keep up.
Hahahahahahahaha... whatta laugh. You responded to my post and split one half of my argument in order to ask a question that was answered if you had just read the rest of my argument. I was referring to your post and your question.
I have to be able to say no to every single religious idea you put forward in order to be truly free.
You do have that freedom. That is not the freedom FROM I was describing. You have been arguing a position that others may not put forward religious ideas at all. That is the freedom FROM I was knocking.
Acknolwedging the existence of god is necessarily a religious notion.
Now you are equivocating again. Yes, I freely admit that the song is religious in nature in that it certainly suggests there are forces beyond ourselves that can help us.
That is different than advocating a particular religion or deity.
The announcement that one believes in a religion and it has helped them, hardly forces anyone to know what faith you must follow, or that you even have to follow one.
Why does it matter? You can't be talking about god unless you give a specific name for that god?
Yes it matters. Read the Bill of Rights. The issue is with the establishment of a religion, or the usurpation of your rights to conduct your religious beliefs (or lack thereof). How does a personal statement which is totally generic with respect to identity of God and tenets establish anything or deny anything?
Did you or did you not use as justification for that claim that it isn't a religious song the fact that it simply uses the word "faith" and "prayer"?
Let me apologize for any confusion I may have caused. Since people were claiming this was a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, I was using "religious" and "religion" in the manner which it is used in the Bill of Rights. That is a body of beliefs and practices. Not the generic "religious" which is equated with "spiritual".
The song is clearly religious in the broad sense, but is clearly not religious in the stricter sense. It does not suggest any specific religion, or denomination of religion to follow. Thus it cannot act to help establish a religion, or abridge one's rights to one's own religious beliefs.
It uses specifically religious imagery. It was released by a religious singer. It is a religious song.
Then so is "Imagine", right? You said Lennon was religious, the song clearly used religious imagery, and was about (in part) religion.
George is talking about getting laid. Celine is talking about god.
Heheheh. That depends on how you look at it. Having watched the South Park episode where Cartman became a Xian singer, I can't look at spiritual music the same again. She could very well be talking about sex, and he could very well be talking about God.
In any case, the point I was trying to make was that "faith" does not point to anything specific. I suppose I was reaching with the Goerge Michael reference. I guess I should have gone for a Madonna song instead.
Remember...I'm an Air Froce brat. I'm from everywhere.
Well I can tell you where you weren't. Things must suck lots of places though. Maybe I just had things too good and took them for granted.
In any case you guys are hosers for not standing up for yourselves.
Oh, yes they are. The very idea of tolerance stems from etiquette. The enforcement of equal legal proceedings is the legal equivalent of tolerance. You respect the diversity by tolerating the differences.
You respect diversity by TOLERATING the differences. Perhaps you should reflect on what that means.
What is doesn't mean is people should mind that they do not offend others at all times by reigning in appearances of difference on matters of belief and action.
What it does mean is that when you see someone who differs with you regarding beliefs and actions, you let it slide and don't act offended.
Etiquette and laws kept gay and interracial sex, not to mention most sex of any kind, out of discussion and out of sight... and preferably in jail. We usually describe the process of more lenient laws and norms regarding sexual communication and identity as being Tolerant, and supportive of Diversity.
The same would go with regard to religion.
You are allowed to have whatever sex you want in private. You aren't allowed to have sex in public (theoretically...in practice, straight people can but gay people can't.)
Actually that depends on where you are. And those societies with greater freedom of expression of sexual acts, despite the fact that some might find it offensive, would be called what? More tolerant. What would they exhibit? More diversity.
I am? Since when did I ever say I was gay? I certainly don't recall mentioning it. I've been very careful not to say one way or the other in order to counter precisely the argument you are trying to use: That my statements are somehow related to my status.
Uhhhh, you sure do suggest it, if you don't come out and say it. I think you have used we on occassions when discussing gays or gay issues.
But maybe I'm mistaken. In any case I'm glad you finally recognize that one cannot judge a person's status from their arguments.
Tolerance and diversity also recognizes that there are times and places where it is inappropriate to engage in certain activities. Sometimes, illegal.
Not right here, not right now.
What a bunch of rubbish. Hey, all fundies are asking is that homosexual activity not be considered appropriate in public (not here, not now), and in some cases illegal.
Is that tolerant of diversity? No.
Excuse me? Since when did it become "intolerant" to refuse to accomodate boors? What a typical, right-wing statement: Refusal to accept intolerance is somehow labeled "intolerance." Since when?
You were refusing to accept her statements of personal enjoyment of faith, not a statement of intolerance towards other. Or are you suggesting there was something intolerant within those lyrics?
I am not at all suggesting that you put up with people acting intolerant with you. I am outright stating there was no intolerance that I could find in those lyrics, and conversely plenty of intolerance in your own position.
Your intolerance marks you as intolerant, not a lack of tolerance for the intolerance of others.
Then why did she sue? She wanted to sing a religious song. The administration said no. Somehow, she thought her rights were being violated. And yet you claim that this issue is a tiny, miniscule issue.
It is tiny to those who would have heard it, not to the individual being stopped from speaking. Big enough to go to court over? Not for me, but people have their own estimates of worth and resources to pursue their claim.
In any case, how does this prove that she is a person who can't go for 15 minutes without giving a sermon. I didn't make that character assessment/assassination. You did. Suing for the right to have sung what she wanted, because she felt the decision was discriminatory hardly makes one a zealot. As it stands she didn't bother continuing the suit through a full appeals process.
The lyrics. You did read them before you started in on this conversation, didn't you?
Without question I did. I even tried a couple sites trying to find a translation for the other words. Your insinuation to the contrary hardly makes me want to continue talking with you.
Look at those lyrics and explain to me how they are a religious ceremony? A worship service?
If you honestly see a religious service in those words then there simply is nothing else to say, as I honestly don't. But I'd love to have you explain what makes that a religious ceremony, or perhaps your definition of a religious ceremony?
Ah, so constitutional violations aren't really violations unless somebody says something and when they do, they're being jerks about it.
No, that is taking my words completely opposite from what they said. I said there can be constitutional violations that others would appeal for redress, and that I would not because I am more tolerant than most.
That does not at all say such violations are not violations, and that those who appeal for redress are jerks.
However I will admit there are cases of appealing to rights, which might be correct and yet people are jerks for pressing the issue.
Amazing how in this entire discussion, I'm the one who quoted the lyrics. Not you. Not crash. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't know who sang the song.
You are certainly the first who posted the lyrics, but that proves jack shit about when I first read them. By the way, when did I ever say I didn't know who sang the song? That was in the very first post the article was cited in.
Maybe you need to stop pretending you're a mind reader. What I can tell you for sure is that Crash admitted HE didn't read the lyrics, and that's what you suggested as well. On top of that you made statements which indicated an unfamiliarity with the article. That doesn't take a mindreading act.
I think the Constitution is the ultimate authority. I think the interpretational precedents are clear.
So do I. And one major precedent is that not all intepretational precedents are permanent, much less correct. As it is I believe my position is tied with current interpretation. I guess we won't know for sure until such a case as this hits the Supreme Court.
The acknowledgement of the existence of god is by necessity a religious ceremony.
That is ludicrous. Okay, you can have that overly broad definition of "ceremony" if you want, but that is not how most people use that term.
Usually "ceremony" involves some sort of ritual tied with specific tenets of a specific belief system.
What about spiritual belief systems that do not include gods?
What about spiritual belief systems that have multiple gods?
What about spiritual belief systems that are of the opinion that god doesn't care about your daily life?
I don't see any of these groups being offended or contradicted (especially the multiple God system) by the lyrics in that song. It is generic enough to be fitted to anything.
And more importantly, it does not suggest any single religion as the most appropriate one. Please point to the lyrics that show this.
I see the most qualifying terms being that the entity helping her is a "he" and "above". As far as I can tell that covers (is acceptable) to almost all polytheistic religions currently in practice, as well as the spiritual yet no god religions.
Just to let you know, I don't have so much time to answer your posts as they are currently being written. Can you please keep things short?
It seems to me the only important points are:
1) The subject of if her singing the song would have been a violation of your rights,
2) What makes that song a religious ceremony (or what is a ceremony in the first place)
3) What lyrics within that song count as an establishment of a religion
4) What makes a student an agent of the school system.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
