Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    The "university" is acting foolish. Just another example of why being
    "politically correct" is stupid.
    
    Marc H.

    And John, they say there isn't a cultural war taking place right now...

Is the University of New Hampshire a state university?  If so, why should
tax dollars be used to promote the Christian religion?

				-- Bob

re Note 527.3 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     And John, they say there isn't a cultural war taking place right now...

        Pat,

        Do you really mean to imply that the song "Onward Christian
        Soldiers" and the message it literally conveys is a mere
        element of American culture and not a highly partisan
        religious anthem that is anything but generically
        "Judeao-Christian" in content?

        Pat, I'm surprised at you.  Thirty years ago most Catholics
        would have identified that song not as a "Christian" song
        but as a "Protestant" song.  It certainly isn't "Judeao-"
        anything.

        I really think that, in the long run, the religious right
        will bring much harm to the interests of Christian religion
        by their insistence that Christian religion is just an aspect
        of American culture, rather than a distinct confession that
        separates Christians from many true fellow Americans and
        joins Christians to many fellow non-Americans throughout the
        world.

        Bob

    All in all, it occurs to me that this is much ado about very little.
    Yes, the song "Onward, Christian Soldiers" is clearly a Christian song.
    Yes, publicly funded schools ought not be promoting religious themes.
    But it occurs to me that, like art and literature from the Renaissance
    era, much popular Christian music has some artistic merit in its own
    right.  Therefore, argue the validity of performing such music on the
    artistic merits, if needs be, but otherwise I should think that the
    good leaders of the University of New Hampshire really ought to have
    more important things to worry about than carillon music.  Unless
    they are also going to censor discussion and display of works of art
    and literature by the Rennaissance masters, as well.
           
    Mike                                               

    Re: .6
    
    Exactly.....
    
    Marc H.

    Mike,
    
    For me whether the song should be included or excluded is a matter of
    balance.  But the debate has everything to do with what the University
    of New Hampshire and all academic communities are about.  How do we
    honor a pluralistic university and society.  And how does any community
    use its symbols and rituals as an expression of its intrinsic values.
    
    The issue for me is "are the intrinsic values of the University
    pluralistic or are the intrinsic values of the University Christian" 
    How do the rituals of the University support the appropriate intrinsic
    values.  THis question to me is much more important than whether one
    song is included or excluded.
    
    
                            Patricia

    re: .8
    
    I understand the need to honor our pluralistic society.  However, we
    are not talking about an exclusively Christian music program, but
    rather a program that constitutes less than 25% of the total available
    repertory.  I should think that rather than censor the available music,
    they request the carillon players increase the repertory to include
    more music with secular themes.  It seems to me that would be a more
    reasonable request.                                         
    
    In any case, many pieces of Christian music have, in fact, entered our
    culture and are performed, not necessarily for their religious theme,
    but because they are beautiful pieces of music.  The songs "Silent
    Night, Holy Night", "Amazing Grace", and Shubert's "Ave Maria", the
    "Dies Irae" from the Latin requiem mass are a few that come immediately
    to mind.  
    
    Mike
              

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before!
Christ the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle, see, his banners go.
  Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the cross of Jesus going on before!

At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
On then Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Christians lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
  Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the cross of Jesus going on before!

Like a mighty army moves the Church of God;
Christians, we are treading where the saints have trod;
We are not divided, all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
  Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the cross of Jesus going on before!

What the saints established that I hold for true.
What the saints believed that believe I too.
Long as earth endureth men that faith will hold,--
Kingdoms, nations, empires, in destruction rolled.
  Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the cross of Jesus going on before!

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
But the Church of Jesus constant will remain;
Gates of hell can never 'gainst that Church prevail;
We have Christ's own promise, and that cannot fail.
  Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the cross of Jesus going on before!

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng;
Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song:
Glory, laud, and honor, unto Christ the King;
This through countless ages we with angels sing.
  Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
  With the cross of Jesus going on before!

			-- Words: Sabine Baring-Gould, 1864
			   Music: Arthur S. Sullivan, 1871

	How much harm does one feel from hearing music without words when
	one does not know the words? Even a child can ignore the words to
	a song, even one being sung, and listen to the beat and to the sounds
	of the music. 

	If you want more diversity, than add more songs. Or rotate the play
	list. But to assert that playing Christian music on a carillon is 
	somehow contradictory to diversity is silly. Christians are a very
	diverse group themselves after all.

	I would hope that a college would teach that music and art are to
	be valued for their own sake and not just for a message that someone
	wants to attribute to it. I see this action as counter to the very
	nature of education, art appreciation, and academic freedom.

			Alfred

    The significance in this is in the fact that the those opposed to the
    songs thought it to be significant.

    Mike,
    
    My basic premise was that the need to question what values the
    selection of songs in total promote. I think a public University needs
    to promote diversity and pluralism.   Would you be comfortable if a
    Pagan song were part of the program: A Native American Song?  I agree
    that it is a matter of balance.  If 25% of the songs represented the
    Christian traditions, then what percent of the songs represented other
    religious traditions?
    
    Alfred,
    
    Your question has been asked to me by my children many times.  They
    want to know why I object to two songs that they want to play on there
    tape recorders.  One is "Let's talk about sex"  and the other is by
    Jazzy Jeff and is "Women ain't nothing but trouble."  Music has a great
    impact on our subconscious minds.  My children argue that they are just
    songs and its the music and beat they listen too.  Would you let
    children listen to them because they can ignore the words and just
    listen to the music or is the content also important.  How many people
    Christian or non Christian can listen to the music of Onward Christian
    Soldiers and not recognize at least the first line?
    
                            pat

    Forgive my ignorance, but what's a "Carillon"?
    
    -- Mike

    Plurality; a good idea that can be carried too far, as in when it
    attempts to push out the majority view.  And not all diversity is
    necessarily desireable. 
    
    Anyway, does that mean we have to censor out pieces of art because it
    might possibly offend someone's political sensibilities?  Besides, if
    we want to get into a balancing act, given that the vast majority of
    Americans claim Christianity as their chosen faith, I dare say that a
    very good case could be made that 25% of the repertory devoted to music
    from the Christian experience is too small!

    Parenthetically, this is, of course, the critical flaw with quota
    programs.

    And as for the question of my comfort level over including Native
    American or pagan pieces of music in the carillon program, I would have
    no problem with that.  Provided, of course, it made sense
    aesthetically.  I don't want to sacrifice artistic integrity to
    political expediency.
                                               
    Mike

re Note 527.12 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     Would you be comfortable if a
>     Pagan song were part of the program: A Native American Song?  I agree
>     that it is a matter of balance.  If 25% of the songs represented the
>     Christian traditions, then what percent of the songs represented other
>     religious traditions?
  
        I think the (conservative) argument is that "Onward Christian
        Soldiers" is appropriate not because it is Christian per se
        but because it represents an important thread that has
        existed throughout the fabric of American culture.

        "Other religious traditions", with the possible exception of
        those "Judeo" types, have been relatively invisible in
        American culture.  Thus their songs should be relatively
        inaudible in a mixture chosen to represent American cultural
        heritage.  Thus to present Pagan songs, or Native American
        Songs, on the carillon would be as much a violation of
        American culture as the absence of Christian songs.

        Have I characterized the conservative viewpoint on this
        fairly (if without sympathy)?  The conservative point is that
        this isn't a religious issue at all, but a cultural one.

        Bob

    Re: .12
    
    Pat, I don't know, it still sounds like a big to-do about nothing.
    
    As for songs for children, I 'm pretty liberal with what my son
    hears...except for the obnoxious heavy metal junk. 
    
    Marc H.

    I prefer the lesser known words to the tune as contained in note 128.9.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

"Forward through the ages" was written by Frederick Lucien Hosmer in 1908
and published in the "Thought of God" in 1918.

Was it specifically intended to be sung to Sullivan's "St. Gertrude" (the
name of the tune he composed for "Onward, Christian Soldiers")?  I don't
know.  My copy of it uses a tune called "Blencathra", but that tune was
composed after "Forward through the ages" was written, and for a different
hymn.  There are a lot of "65 65 D. with refrain" hymns (the metrical
designation), all of whose tunes are interchangeable.

"Onward, Christian Soldiers" was written for a Children's Festival at
Horbury Bridge, "for procession with cross and banners."  Those children
sang it to the theme of the slow movement from Haydn's "D major Symphony",
no. 15, but this was dropped from use as soon as "St. Gertrude" appeared.

/john

    re:  .13  Mike
    
    From the American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    "1.  A stationary set of chromatically tuned bells in a tower, usually
    played from a keyboard.  2.  A composition written or arranged for the
    carillon."
    
    
    Steve
    

	RE: .12 I allow my son pretty wide latitude in his listening music.
	I don't recall a song I forbad him to listen to. But he's a bright
	kid and uses good judgment most of the time anyway. He's also pretty
	musical. Plays the drums, guitar, and piano. He doesn't sing much so
	tends to listen very much closer to the instriments then to the words.

	Of course in this case I believe the words to the music should not
	be a concideration as the carillon is music with out words. Thus
	I would not object to good music from any source in this case. Good
	not being defined by who wrote it, what words "went" with it, or
	what it was written for. Just by the sound of it.

			Alfred

    
    
    I think there is an overwhelming movement in this country to 
    discriminate against Christians.  This is just another move to
    drown out our voice by "well-meaning, pluralistic, valuing differences
    zealots."  The Word of God is the truth and it will always stand and 
    His saints with Him.  If you're into proclaiming anything that isn't 
    in the Word of God, it's not going to last.   You see...the script for 
    this life is already written and I peeked ahead at the end and the
    Christians are on the winning team.  
    
    Interestingly enough that State-run University (sounds like communism
    when put that way, doesn't it?) is funded with money that claims
    "In God We Trust".  This country is mocking God and one day He will
    not hold His anger any longer.   This nation is in for a big fall
    and I don't mean autumn.
    
    Jill

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Christians from discrimination.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

>    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Christians from discrimination.

	And it protects blacks as well. Go ahead, tell me there is no
	organized discrimination against blacks.

			Alfred

    
    Yeah...well I got news for you Richard.  I've heard several reports of
    discrimination against Christians.  I don't care if there is an act
    or not.  The Civil Rights also protects blacks from discrimination,
    it doesn't mean it don't happen.
    
    Another interesting thought.  Bach's work was written for the church 
    or at the very least inspired by his christianity.  Maybe that should 
    be banned as well from any public orchestras playing it.   How far is 
    this going to be taken?!?
    
    Jill
    

    .23,  Alfred,
    
    You point out a sad truth.  But at least the legislation is there.
    And that law is such a threat to some that they're spending lots of
    money to prevent others from receiving protection against discrimination.
    (Note 91.844)
    
    Richard
    

So, why doesn't a group of Christians file a claim of discrimination against
the decision makers of the University of New Hampshire?

Why not get Pat Robertson and his American Center for Law and Justice to
take legal action?

Are you saying Christians have no recourse?

Richard

    
    Richard, don't be absurd!  I'm not saying Christians have no legal
    recourse against discrimination, but that doesn't change the fact
    that there is discrimination.
    
    But why is this happening Richard?  Is it really just because our
    society is pluralistic and other views are not being heard because 
    Christian views are be promoted.  I don't think so.  Our music,
    our prayers, our Bibles are being systematically banned from being
    present in public places.  Why?
    
    Jill

>So, why doesn't a group of Christians file a claim of discrimination against
>the decision makers of the University of New Hampshire?

	I would not, in part, because it would give give credibility to the
	idea that the music was an attempt to force Christianity on people. 
	I don't believe it is but that's how the action would be interpreted
	by all too many.

>Are you saying Christians have no recourse?

	In theory there is recourse. In practice I think not.

			Alfred

    re: .27
    
    I'm not sure, but let's try this thought on for size.  Maybe the reason
    for such discrimination has to do with the attitudes and discrimination
    that many (but by no means all) Christians and Christian demoninations
    have expressed for non-Christians in the past.  Such intolerance for
    non-Christians does seem to be built into the Christian way of doing
    things.  Anyway, while that doesn't make anti-Christian discrimination
    right, it certainly might be a reason why it happens.  Perhaps, then,
    the best solution is for Christians to stop looking on everyone as a
    potential Christian and to start looking at other good people as being
    good just as they are.  If they want to join with you, they will.  In
    other words, practice the tolerance toward others that they would have
    practiced toward them.  A rather tall order, I know.  An impossible
    one, probably, given the Christian mindset.  But there it is.
    
    Mike
                                                                 

Re: .27 Jill

>                         -< What are they afraid of? >-

The establishment of a state religion.
    
>    Our music,
>    our prayers, our Bibles are being systematically banned from being
>    present in public places.  Why?
    
Your music, prayers and Bibles are not being systematically banned from
being present in public places.  They are being banned from being present
in government-funded places.  The reason is the modern interpretation of
the 1st Amendment: the government is not permitted to establish a national
religion.  The modern interpretation of this amendment is that if
Christian symbols are permitted on government property or are paid for
with government funds then in effect Christianity is being promoted as a
national religion.

				-- Bob

Also see Topic 425, "Separation of Church and State"

Richard

    
    Come on Bob.  Do you honesty think that people in this day and age in
    the United States where we have more religious diversity are afraid
    of the establishment of a state religion?  
    
    At what point does not being able to have religious symbols on
    government funded property interfer with a person's religious freedoms?
    I've heard of a boy suspended for bringing his Bible to school to read
    to himself on his free time and having to take it to the State Supreme
    Court to get the decision reversed.  I've heard of high school kids who
    were threatened to be arrested and others who were for the "See you
    at the poles" meeting where Christians kids met to pray around the
    flagpoles at schools across the country.  These are blatant violations
    of their religious freedoms.  They weren't doing anything to anybody!

Yes, there are some genuinely curious excesses.

When I was in High School there were several kids who carried a Bible around
with them all day.  One of them was a friend I'd known since the first grade.
Some kids deliberately avoided him, but nobody made a big deal out of Danny
lugging the book around with him.

Incidentally, this friend, last I heard, was a devout atheist.

Peace,
Richard

	RE: .29 Ah, yes, blame the victim. A popular way to avoid responsibility.

				Alfred

    Alfred, 
    
    Is that all you got out of my little missive?  I hoped something else
    might be found there.  But then, I suppose this is a case where my
    reputation precedes me and whatever message there might have been is
    lost due to that.  Mea culpa.
    
    Mike

>    Is that all you got out of my little missive?  I hoped something else
>    might be found there.  But then, I suppose this is a case where my
>    reputation precedes me and whatever message there might have been is
>    lost due to that.  Mea culpa.

	That's not all I got out of it. Just the part I chose to reply to.
	As for your reputation a) I don't know it and b) I read notes first
	and look at the authors name second (if at all). That may be why I don't
	know your reputation. I try to judge notes on their merit not their 
	author.

			Alfred

    Well, okay, Alfred.  No problem. 
    
    As to my reputation, have a chat or exchange some mail with John Covert
    or Pat Sweeney some day.  I'm certain one or the other would be more
    than happy to fill you in.
    
    Mike

Re: .32 Jill

>    Come on Bob.  Do you honesty think that people in this day and age in
>    the United States where we have more religious diversity are afraid
>    of the establishment of a state religion?  
    
I sure am, considering that 95% of people in this country believe in God,
that the President has said that atheists cannot be good citizens, and
considering the political successes achieved over the last several years
by the religious right.

>    At what point does not being able to have religious symbols on
>    government funded property interfer with a person's religious freedoms?

The distinction I would make is that the government, or organizations
directly funded by the government, should not be able to display religious
symbols.  I don't have a problem with individuals carry such symbols on
their person.

>    I've heard of a boy suspended for bringing his Bible to school to read
>    to himself on his free time and having to take it to the State Supreme
>    Court to get the decision reversed.

I think the boy was treated unfairly.

>  I've heard of high school kids who
>    were threatened to be arrested and others who were for the "See you
>    at the poles" meeting where Christians kids met to pray around the
>    flagpoles at schools across the country.

It's an interesting situation.  The school could not have an organizized
prayer session because it is in effect part of the government, but
individuals within the school should be free to pray on their own.  But if
the prayers are held in a public place (by the flag pole outside the
school) are are attended by a large part of the student body, they can
have the same adverse effects on non-Christian students as if the prayers
were organized by the school.  If the students disobeyed school rules by
holding a mass meeting on school property and refused to leave when asked
then they were guilty of trespass and were rightly subject to arrest.
However, I believe that the courts have recently ruled that if non-
religious clubs are permitted to meet on school property after school
hours then religious clubs must be permitted to meet as well.  Thus the
students could pray in a religious club after school hours - they just
can't take over the playground and hold prayer sessions during recess, for
example.

				-- Bob

    re: .-1
    
    Quite simply,
    
    Unsponsored and voluntary public prayer is part of the free exercise of
    religion.
    
    Pat

    Not to mention freedom of speech.

Re: .38 Bob
    
>I sure am, considering that 95% of people in this country believe in God,
>that the President has said that atheists cannot be good citizens, and
>considering the political successes achieved over the last several years
>by the religious right.

    Ha!  95% huh?   Ask those 95% who their "God" is and I'll be you'll get
    1000s of different answers.  
    
    The president's power has limits...he can say anything but that doesn't
    mean anything will come of it.
    
    How about the successes of the "heathen left" ;^) Bob?  Would there
    be a "religious right" without a "heathen left"?

>The distinction I would make is that the government, or organizations
>directly funded by the government, should not be able to display religious
>symbols.  I don't have a problem with individuals carry such symbols on
>their person.

   Good.  Although, I believe that the idea of separation of church and state
   has been so completely distorted in recent days that our forefathers are
   probably rolling over in their graves.

>I think the boy was treated unfairly.

   Undisputable.

>It's an interesting situation.  The school could not have an organizized
>prayer session because it is in effect part of the government, but
>individuals within the school should be free to pray on their own.  But if
>the prayers are held in a public place (by the flag pole outside the
>school) are are attended by a large part of the student body, they can
>have the same adverse effects on non-Christian students as if the prayers
>were organized by the school.  If the students disobeyed school rules by
>holding a mass meeting on school property and refused to leave when asked
>then they were guilty of trespass and were rightly subject to arrest.
>However, I believe that the courts have recently ruled that if non-
>religious clubs are permitted to meet on school property after school
>hours then religious clubs must be permitted to meet as well.  Thus the
>students could pray in a religious club after school hours - they just
>can't take over the playground and hold prayer sessions during recess, for
>example.

   Meet you at the poles was an effort by Christian kids.  The schools did
   not support it.  Teachers were forbidden to support it.  The kids I know 
   of met as early as 6:30am before school to pray.  I'd hardly say that's 
   trying to force anything on anybody else.  Coronado had about 65 kids showed 
   up at the flagpole before school.  If all individuals do not have the right 
   to assemble on government property...that's one thing...but if a group of 
   individuals do not have the right because of their faith...that's another 
   thing.  The kids were told that if they assemble they would be arrested...
   they weren't.  But if a rule is unjust and violates the rights you have 
   under the constitution, is it not okay to protest it?   Or do I 
   misunderstand my rights as an American?

Jill
    

Re: .41  Jill

>   If all individuals do not have the right 
>   to assemble on government property...that's one thing...but if a group of 
>   individuals do not have the right because of their faith...that's another 
>   thing.

I can go along with that.  I really shouldn't comment on the situation
without knowing all of the facts.

				-- Bob

Note 527.41

>    How about the successes of the "heathen left" ;^) Bob?  Would there
>    be a "religious right" without a "heathen left"?

My perception is that the counterpart to the "religious right" is the
"religious left", which conceivably might include liberal and radical
Christians.

>   Good.  Although, I believe that the idea of separation of church and state
>   has been so completely distorted in recent days that our forefathers are
>   probably rolling over in their graves.

Let's hope so, at least to some degree.  Our forefathers were exclusively
White male landholders.  Some owned slaves.  It was not uncommon for
slaveowners to force themselves sexually on their slave women.  Yet we hold
these White male landholders in high esteem, call them our "forefathers," and
become concerned when we may have strayed from their original intent.  I say
let 'em roll around in their graves a little.  The exercise will do them good!

Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did have
the foresight to leave a lot of room for interpretation.  They must have known
then, as we do now, that things just don't remain the same indefinately.

Peace,
Richard