Football Fans Defy Court Order Against Marching Band, Sing Christian Hymn

[Scott Lloyd]

You do not seems to want to grasp or want understand very basic concepts - public forum and the relation of State and Religions. The government cannot engage in activity that shows preference for one religion over another. There is no practice of "forbidding any expression of religion in public". You seem wont to distort the issues when it comes to religion. Your distortions amount too "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." As for your hypothetical, I will not attempt to address. I will not attempt to address it because the distortions you have made apparent in this thread. Perhaps, You, should look of the court ruling or similar ruling and learn how courts deal with Prayer in schools and other apparent State sponsorship of religion. I suggest the following, Lee v. Weisman; Religious Freedom in Schools FAQ

Why won't you address it? It's a plain enough hypothetical and a simple enough question. A group of high school band students, on their own time and turf, rehearse a religious song, then bring their instruments to the football game so they can play it there, perhaps in a harmless sort of flash mob demonstration.

 

Acceptable or not? Answer the question. Why the evasiveness?

 

On another note, have you been on this board recently under a different screen name?

[Scott Lloyd]

So in your view, the government should promote "religion" in general, as long as it isn't endorsing a specific church?  Atheists are frequently told that atheism is a religion too.  If that's the case, how do you envision the government promoting the religion of the theists without simultaneously attacking the religion of the atheists?

 

"Keeping religion out" of the schools and public places can mean two things: either than the state shouldn't sponsor religious expression (like the actual case referred to in the OP), or that people should be forbidden from religious expression in public places (like the straw man the OP attacks).  

 

The former is a winning position that many people take.  The latter is a losing position that few people take.

Atheists, in theory, are free to exercise their irreligion in public. No one here is denying them that. And supporting the Constitutionally guaranteed liberty of free exercise of religion does not deny them their right of expression. You're assuming a false premise.

 

Again, nothing in the Constitution guarantees that you can demand to be insulated in public from someone's expression of religious faith. To make such a guarantee would be tantamount to prohibiting the free exercise of religion -- and the First Amendment expressly forbids such a prohibition.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

Ignoring the Godwin's Law Corollary and false equivalence you have engaged in comparing the singing of a hymn to racial segregation...

 

I would expect a Muslim dominated community would welcome the playing of Islamic inspired tunes by a school band, just as a Protestant community might welcome the playing of a Christian inspired (or in this case adapted) tune by a school band.  This is in no way establishment of religion by virtue of the use of those tunes as musical literature with cultural meaning to the audience.  Denying the school and community this opportunity is preventing free expression.

 

Can you seriously imagine someone argueing that using "Variants on Dives and Lazarus" by a public school in a predominantly LDS community would be the state establishing the Mormon religion?

 

 

I am not comparing segregation and the singing of hymns, so please do not derail the topic at hand; what I am questioning is who is that decides what is to be determined by community standards versus what is a protected right.

 

And you are confusing the free expression of individuals with promotion or even favoritism of religion by state-sponsored entities. The private citizens who sang the hymn have every right to do so, to practice their right of free expression. Nobody has argued otherwise. But it is a different concept when state-funded entities and school-sponsored and school-funded associations show favoritism of one religion over another....this is essential to the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion.

[Scott Lloyd]

DROP   Your title is wrong--- there was no court order preventing the crowd from singing the hymn.  If the band members individually had decided to repair to the stands and individually played it, that would not have violated the order either.

 

I have already clarified  what I meant: What is being defied is a public sentiment that would exclude any unified expression of religious faith in the public sphere.

 

I agree that the crowd was not defying any court order; there was no court order that prohibited spontaneous singing in the crowd.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

These spontaneous musical groups are not as hypothetical as you might think. 

 

A group of musical buddies from my public High School used to get together and form a brass band every year to play Christmas Carols at the local train station and nursing homes.  

 

In college a few of us formed a Dixieland Band and played at local cafes.  One of our favorites was "Just a Closer Walk With Thee".

 

I have distinct recollections of my High School Classmates breaking into "When the Saints Come Marching In" before and after rehearsals, or during breaks in football games.

I think that's great. I wish there were more of that sort of thing.

 

I love flash mobs, and I think religious flash mobs would be a great thing.

 

Even the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has put on a flash mob.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

I am not comparing segregation and the singing of hymns, so please do not derail the topic at hand; what I am questioning is who is that decides what is to be determined by community standards versus what is a protected right.

 

And you are confusing the free expression of individuals with promotion or even favoritism of religion by state-sponsored entities. The private citizens who sang the hymn have every right to do so, to practice their right of free expression. Nobody has argued otherwise. But it is a different concept when state-funded entities and school-sponsored and school-funded associations show favoritism of one religion over another....this is essential to the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion.

 

I am on topic.  As a former music teacher I had to deal with the fallout from the boobirds and special snotflakes who thought their emotional instability was more important then others freedom of expression.

 

Nothing in the behavior of that band or band director should reasonably be construed as establishing religion.

 

Community standards are decided by (drumroll please) COMMUNITIES!

 

Yet still no straight answer for my "Dives and Lazarus" question.

Edited August 26, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

 

 

Even the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has put on a flash mob.

 

In a public place!?  Did anyone inform the ACLU of their illegal imposition of their religion on the ears of the poor atheists in the room.

 

Sorry- this is just too easy to mock.

 

Equating a band playing a hymn tune with establishment of religion just cracks me up.

[Scott Lloyd]

In a public place!?  Did anyone inform the ACLU of their illegal imposition of their religion on the ears of the poor atheists in the room.

 

Sorry- this is just too easy to mock.

 

Equating a band playing a hymn tune with establishment of religion just cracks me up.

Well, they were singing a patriotic tune at the time, and the setting was Colonial Williamsburg.

 

Edited to add:

 

This is not the best YouTube video I've seen of that occasion, but it will work.

 

Warning: in the comments section some ignorant boor pipes up with a remark about Mormons and "fancy underwear."

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

I am on topic.  As a former music teacher I had to deal with the fallout from the boobirds and special snotflakes who thought their emotional instability was more important then others freedom of expression.

 

Nothing in the behavior of that band or band director should reasonably be construed as establishing religion.

 

Community standards are decided by (drumroll please) COMMUNITIES!

 

Yet still no straight answer for my "Dives and Lazarus" question.

 

So essentially, you argue that the viewpoints and the rights of the minority opinion of the community should be sacrificed because they do not align with the majority opinion (the community standards)? Basically, if they disagree with the majority, they should just get over it? Then, what, exactly, is the point of having a Constitution; just leave rights up to majority rule, the community standard.

[ERayR]

So essentially, you argue that the viewpoints and the rights of the minority opinion of the community should be sacrificed because they do not align with the majority opinion (the community standards)? Basically, if they disagree with the majority, they should just get over it? Then, what, exactly, is the point of having a Constitution; just leave rights up to majority rule, the community standard.

 

So essentially, you argue that the viewpoints and the rights of the minority majority opinion of the community should be sacrificed because they do not align with the majority minority opinion (the community standards)? Basically, if they disagree with the majority minority , they should just get over it? Then, what, exactly, is the point of having a Constitution; just leave rights up to majority minority rule, the community standard.

[KevinG]

So essentially, you argue that the viewpoints and the rights of the minority opinion of the community should be sacrificed because they do not align with the majority opinion (the community standards)? Basically, if they disagree with the majority, they should just get over it? Then, what, exactly, is the point of having a Constitution; just leave rights up to majority rule, the community standard.

 

Wow.  I said none of that.  Please master framing your own arguments before trying to frame mine.

 

While you are at it could you please answer the "Dives and Lazarus" question.  I'll say it again...

 

If a school orchestra playing Vaughan Williams "Dives and Lazarus" does not constitute state establishment of the Mormon religion then how does a school band playing "How Great Thou Art" constitute establishment of a Protestant religion?

Edited August 26, 2015 by KevinG

[williamsmith]

Freedom in Pluralistic society is about tolerance of other's differences, it's not about "banning" them.

 

There is no "freedom from religion" clause in America's Laws, there is only the Freedom of Religion.

There is also no such thing as a "speparation of church and state" in American Law or the Constitution.

In fact, the 1st Amendment specifically allows religion to not be prohibited.  In other words, if a School Band want's to play a religious song, it can.

 

So let’s look at the First Amendment. It says:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Of course, states and lower can essentially do what they want, but such should still be in the spirit of the law of the land as above.

One fun fact is that when the above was penned, 1/3 of the states actually had "Official" State Religions.

 

Bottom line, the Constitution is just as Pro-Religion as it is Anti-Religion.

There is no such thing as a separation of Church and State, only the disallowing of the establishing of religion by the state, that others must be compliant to, which pretty much also eliminated the Official state religions.  The People engaging in activities religious or otherwise, no matter if part of a school or otherwise cannot be banned, period.  Community's themselves are to work on what their values and interests are.

Edited August 27, 2015 by williamsmith

[ERayR]

 

Freedom in Pluralistic society is about tolerance of other's differences, it's not about "banning" them.

 

There is no "freedom from religion" clause in America's Laws, there is only the Freedom of Religion.

There is also no such thing as a "speparation of church and state" in American Law or the Constitution.

In fact, the 1st Amendment specifically allows religion to not be prohibited.  In other words, if a School Band want's to play a religious song, it can.

 

So let’s look at the First Amendment. It says:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Of course, states and lower can essentially do what they want, but such should still be in the spirit of the law of the land as above.

One fun fact is that when the above was penned, 1/3 of the states actually had "Official" State Religions.

 

Bottom line, the Constitution is just as Pro-Religion as it is Anti-Religion.

There is no such thing as a separation of Church and State, only the disallowing of the establishing of religion by the state, that others must be compliant to, which pretty much also eliminated the Official state religions.  The People engaging in activities religious or otherwise, no matter if part of a school or otherwise cannot be banned, period.  Community's themselves are to work on what their values and interests are.

 

 

AW but the big lie has taken hold.

[thesometimesaint]

 Limiting parent and student spontanious singing of a hymn would not be consistent with freedom of religion or freedom of assembly.

 

That would be freedom from religion.

 

The whole incident is patently ridiculous.   The tune of How Great Thou Art played by 76 trombones is no more religious than performing Ralph Vaughan Williams "Variants on Dives and Lazarus" with an orchestra is promoting the Mormon beliefs about Kolob.  (Points to anyone who understands the reference).

 

You tell me if at the next time BYU or the U of U is in a football or basketball championship you would applaud if the stadium/arena spontaneously started singing music from "The Book of Mormon a musical"? If not why not? It is perfectly legally, there is nothing obscene, it is Tony Award winning.

 

Without the freedom from religion is it impossible to have the freedom of religion.

 

Why the necessity to impose any religion(Hymns, Prayers, etc..) on a public secular event?

[longview]

You tell me if at the next time BYU or the U of U is in a football or basketball championship you would applaud if the stadium/arena spontaneously started singing music from "The Book of Mormon a musical"? If not why not? It is perfectly legally, there is nothing obscene, it is Tony Award winning.

 

Without the freedom from religion is it impossible to have the freedom of religion.

 

Why the necessity to impose any religion(Hymns, Prayers, etc..) on a public secular event?

In all cases, the public square MUST be "sanitized" from ANY expression of religious sentiments.   

[thesometimesaint]

In all cases, the public square MUST be "sanitized" from ANY expression of religious sentiments.   

 

I never said any such thing. Personally I'd rather not cast my pearls before swine.

[SmileyMcGee]

In today's politically correct environment, when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty, I think it is worth highlighting and applauding.

 

Since we as Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty, I see it as relevant to this board.

 

A high school marching band in Mississippi was forbidden from performing a Christian hymn at a football game. In defiance, the crowd spontaneously began to sing the hymn.

 

Read about it here.

Hmmmm...would you mind explaining your idea of the concept of religious liberty? 

Edited August 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[ERayR]

You tell me if at the next time BYU or the U of U is in a football or basketball championship you would applaud if the stadium/arena spontaneously started singing music from "The Book of Mormon a musical"? If not why not? It is perfectly legally, there is nothing obscene, it is Tony Award winning.

 

Without the freedom from religion is it impossible to have the freedom of religion.

 

Why the necessity to impose any religion(Hymns, Prayers, etc..) on a public secular event?

 

It wouldn't bother me.  I just don't think it would take hold spontaneously in that venue.  But if it did fine.

[Bob Crockett]

 

As for the Christmas tree being a "pagan icon," I daresay relatively few people today view it as such. 

 

I think that "not realizing that it is pagan" is the epitome of false worship, just as the Jews did not realize that the worship of the fertility goddess Asherah, and erection of her tree in the temple, was contrary to God's will. 

 

The Christmas tree is, fundamentally, a pagan practice and contrary to "few people" knowing that, I believe it is generally known among Christians who tend to read books.  You knew it, right?

 

But I have one in my house, and I also try not to step on cracks in the sidewalk.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

I think that "not realizing that it is pagan" is the epitome of false worship, just as the Jews did not realize that the worship of the fertility goddess Asherah, and erection of her tree in the temple, was contrary to God's will. 

 

The Christmas tree is, fundamentally, a pagan practice and contrary to "few people" knowing that, I believe it is generally known among Christians who tend to read books.  You knew it, right?

 

It is a symbol.  A symbol can and does mean different things to different people.  It may be a symbol of pagan worship to you but to me it is a symbol of Christmas.  Just ask my grand-kids.

[Analytics]

Atheists, in theory, are free to exercise their irreligion in public. No one here is denying them that. And supporting the Constitutionally guaranteed liberty of free exercise of religion does not deny them their right of expression. You're assuming a false premise.

 

Again, nothing in the Constitution guarantees that you can demand to be insulated in public from someone's expression of religious faith. To make such a guarantee would be tantamount to prohibiting the free exercise of religion -- and the First Amendment expressly forbids such a prohibition.

 

You are severely misunderstanding where the vast-majority of people who favor the separation of church and state are coming from.  We have no problem with people "exercising their religion in public."  Where your religious clothing wherever you go!  Pray around the flag pole at the school!  Give credit and praise to God on T.V. that you won a baseball game!  Stand on a park bench and yell that we are all doomed to hell!  Knock on my door and ask me if I'd like to find Jesus in the Book of Mormon. Baptize each other in the local swimming pool! Sing hymns at football games!  Those things all might be unbecoming and obnoxious, but nobody is saying that you don't or shouldn't have the right to do it. 

 

Nobody is asking or demanding to be "insulated in public from someone's expression of religious faith."  What we are asking for is that the government not sponsor the expression.  We're fine if the school principal preaches his religion on a stool in the public square.  We aren't fine if he preaches it during a school-sponsored assembly.  Can you really not see the difference between those two things?

[SmileyMcGee]

 

You are severely misunderstanding where the vast-majority of people who favor the separation of church and state are coming from.  We have no problem with people "exercising their religion in public."  Where your religious clothing wherever you go!  Pray around the flag pole at the school!  Give credit and praise to God on T.V. that you won a baseball game!  Stand on a park bench and yell that we are all doomed to hell!  Knock on my door and ask me if I'd like to find Jesus in the Book of Mormon. Baptize each other in the local swimming pool! Sing hymns at football games!  Those things all might be unbecoming and obnoxious, but nobody is saying that you don't or shouldn't have the right to do it. 

 

Nobody is asking or demanding to be "insulated in public from someone's expression of religious faith."  What we are asking for is that the government not sponsor the expression.  We're fine if the school principal preaches his religion on a stool in the public square.  We aren't fine if he preaches it during a school-sponsored assembly.  Can you really not see the difference between those two things?

I wish you'd stop attacking religion

 

Well put, Analytics. Your thoughts express the gist of my views toward religious liberty and separation of church and state. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[KevinG]

If someone started singing the Book of Mormon musical in public I'd laugh my butt off. Like I am now because someone just equivocated between the tune of a hymn with the lyrics of a musical as being equally offensive.

[KevinG]

But back to the original question... Does a public school band playing a hymn tune (no lyrics) constitute state establishment of religion? Why?

C'mon its not too hard to answer.

[Stargazer]

Yes, probably -- did you know that in Germany they erect an evergreen tree at the top of buildings once they've completed framing on the top floor?  a tradition going back centuries? -- but it was not a substitutionary symbol, but a modern revival with a thousand years between any pagan usage the current Christian.  In short, it is a Christian symbol now.