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

[provoman]

Court document detailing and analyzing various religious activities the District has engaged in. Edited August 31, 2015 by provoman

[KevinG]

Court document detailing and analyzing various religious activities the District has engaged in.

 

...and as Paul Harvey would say.  The rest of the story.  The judges decision makes more sense in light of numerous and ongoing activities.

 

However I still content that playing music, even when derived from sacred sources, is not establishing religion.  If that is the case you would have to throw out a very large chunk of classical music from the curricula.  That would include Greek, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, etc. music from Gregorian to modern times.

[Walden]

Hogwash.  What dogma does playing the music establish, especially for music that was adopted from non-religious sources?

If the high school marching band plays Christian hymns in exclusion of other religious hymns, chants, incantations, etc., it establishes that Christianity is the preferred religious order and the accepted religious dogma/belief system of that school (the band being a public/state-funded activity that represents a state institution).

 

The need by some believers to push religion in all spheres of society while fighting against a long-established constitutional protection reminds me of my favorite philosophers quote...“How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy.” 

[provoman]

...and as Paul Harvey would say. The rest of the story. The judges decision makes more sense in light of numerous and ongoing activities.

However I still content that playing music, even when derived from sacred sources, is not establishing religion. If that is the case you would have to throw out a very large chunk of classical music from the curricula. That would include Greek, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, etc. music from Gregorian to modern times.

As context plays an important role in the controversy of this thread. Context should always be important when dealing with The Great Wall Of Separation. Much of what seems a norm probably has some forgotten religious underpinning. A singular instance of a playing a "religious" song may not be an issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

As context plays an important role in the controversy of this thread. Context should always be important when dealing with The Great Wall Of Separation. Much of what seems a norm probably has some forgotten religious underpinning. A singular instance of a playing a "religious" song may not be an issue.

It was some years ago in Salt Lake City.

 

A Jewish high school student and her parents sued the school district because the a cappella choir was singing a classical or folk (don't remember which) Christmas song at Christmas time, as they had traditionally done going back for as many Christmases as anyone could remember. There were no school-mandated Christian services, no religious assemblies with students being compelled to attend or participate. Just the singing of traditional Christmas choir songs.

 

Incidentally, the leftist civil rights attorney who brought that litigation was none other than Rocky Anderson, who would go on to become the mayor of Salt Lake City and whose administration, in my estimation, will live in infamy.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here's a legal document for that case  in the event anyone is interested.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

It was some years ago in Salt Lake City.

 

A Jewish high school student and her parents sued the school district because the a cappella choir was singing a classical or folk (don't remember which) Christmas song at Christmas time, as they had traditionally done going back for as many Christmases as anyone could remember. There were no school-mandated Christian services, no religious assemblies with students being compelled to attend or participate. Just the singing of traditional Christmas choir songs.

 

Incidentally, the leftist civil rights attorney who brought that litigation was none other than Rocky Anderson, who would go on to become the mayor of Salt Lake City and whose administration, in my estimation, will live in infamy.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here's a legal document for that case  in the event anyone is interested.

 

I'm not too sure that an appeal to "they had traditionally done going back for as many Christmases as anyone could remember." is the best argument you can make.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not too sure that an appeal to "they had traditionally done going back for as many Christmases as anyone could remember." is the best argument you can make.

So let's ban all public performances of Handel's Messiah, then, that are underwritten by governmental entities or foundations.

 

Is that where you want to go with this?

[thesometimesaint]

So let's ban all public performances of Handel's Messiah, then, that are underwritten by governmental entities or foundations.

 

Is that where you want to go with this?

 

Why would I want that? I don't. But I think even you would agree that playing it at a football game really isn't the best use of Halftime. 

[ERayR]

I'm not afraid of censor. I don't believe in casting my pearls before swine. They don't value the pearls.

Just who are you calling swine.

[ERayR]

Why would I want that? I don't. But I think even you would agree that playing it at a football game really isn't the best use of Halftime. 

I don't see why not.  What else would you suggest?

[Scott Lloyd]

Why would I want that? I don't. But I think even you would agree that playing it at a football game really isn't the best use of Halftime. 

No, I certainly would not agree with that.

 

A spirited rendition of "Hallelujah Chorus" at halftime during, say, the Christmas season, might be very appealing, say I.

 

And I don't take kindly to others dictating for me what is or is not appropriate on a secular occasion.

[Analytics]

It was some years ago in Salt Lake City.

 

A Jewish high school student and her parents sued the school district because the a cappella choir was singing a classical or folk (don't remember which) Christmas song at Christmas time, as they had traditionally done going back for as many Christmases as anyone could remember. There were no school-mandated Christian services, no religious assemblies with students being compelled to attend or participate. Just the singing of traditional Christmas choir songs.

 

Incidentally, the leftist civil rights attorney who brought that litigation was none other than Rocky Anderson, who would go on to become the mayor of Salt Lake City and whose administration, in my estimation, will live in infamy.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here's a legal document for that case  in the event anyone is interested.

 

Thank you for providing that link to the legal document.

 

It should be noted that the lawsuit wasn't merely about a single religious song being sung once a year.  Rather, the claim is that the choir director was using the choir for the primary purpose of promoting his religious beliefs.  She claims that most of the music they were required to sing was religious, that the songs were chosen for their religious messages, that the choir did most of its performances at religious sites, that the choir was identified as a religious choir, that the director berated students who didn't share his religious beliefs, and that the director had been using his position and the school's choir for the primary purpose of promoting his religion for over 17 years.

 

The case hinged on whether this was all done for a primarily secular purpose or a primarily religious one.   

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you for providing that link to the legal document.

 

It should be noted that the lawsuit wasn't merely about a single religious song being sung once a year.  Rather, the claim is that the choir director was using the choir for the primary purpose of promoting his religious beliefs.  She claims that most of the music they were required to sing was religious, that the songs were chosen for their religious messages, that the choir did most of its performances at religious sites, that the choir was identified as a religious choir, that the director berated students who didn't share his religious beliefs, and that the director had been using his position and the school's choir for the primary purpose of promoting his religion for over 17 years.

 

The case hinged on whether this was all done for a primarily secular purpose or a primarily religious one.   

All of which was in dispute, as I understand the case, which did not prevail.

[Analytics]

All of which was in dispute, as I understand the case, which did not prevail.

 

Are you sure those allegations were in dispute?  From the link you provided, it appears the defendants didn't get a chance to dispute the allegations because the case was dismissed before the truth of the allegations were argued.  Basically all that happened is the plaintiffs sued, and the judge reasoned, "let's assume that all of the allegations were in fact true.  If they are in fact true, was the school being too religious according to the Constitution?"  The judge decided that no it wasn't, and dismissed the case.  It was appealed a couple of times and the dismissal was sustained.  The end.

 

Anyway, the point is that according to what they said in the complaint, the folks suing were not nearly as fragile as you make them out to be.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Analytics

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you sure those allegations were in dispute?  From the link you provided, it appears the defendants didn't get a chance to dispute the allegations because the case was dismissed before the truth of the allegations were argued.  Basically all that happened is the plaintiffs sued, and the judge reasoned, "let's assume that all of the allegations were in fact true.  If they are in fact true, was the school being too religious according to the Constitution?"  The judge decided that no it wasn't, and dismissed the case.  It was appealed a couple of times and the dismissal was sustained.  The end.

 

Anyway, the point is that according to what they said in the complaint, the folks suing were not nearly as fragile as you make them out to be.

I'm going by more than just the legal document I linked to.

 

The case was widely covered in the local news media at the time, and my memory is that the school and the teacher denied the allegations. Just because something is never argued as a matter of law doesn't mean there was never a denial of it.

 

But the fact that the judge and the appellate courts all decided the complaints were without merit is significant on its own.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd