Does Religion Deny Music to Children?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 02:51 PM

To think that the earth (universe, i.e., "firmament") is only about 6,000 years old requires ignoring an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

I am reminded of the conversation between the religiously devout individual who followed science and cosmology with fascination, thinking, "This is how God did it! Amazing!!" A "young earth creationist" challenged his belief in science and insisted that All This was created in literally six days and that Adam and Eve were real people, and all that. To which the one fascinated by science responded:

"I'm sorry, but from my viewpoint, your God is too small."

It's the difference between the immense knowledge and power of an Entity capable of creating a cosmos as it is described by modern science, an Entity of such magnitude that any person who claims to know "the Mind of God" is simply spouting nonsense, and an anthropomorphic super-wizard (think Gandolf with a halo), cut down to a size that can be comprehended by our own limited understanding.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 01:37 PM

I am a young-earth creationist. The public school curricula in the U.S. teach that young-earth creationism is false. I do not wish to subject my children to indoctrination in ideas which I believe are false. That is one reason we home-school. We are free to choose, and have chosen, a curriculum that we believe is true.

And are your children free to choose? I only hope evolution has blessed them with sufficient intelligence enough to do so despite your efforts to the contrary.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 12:02 PM

God made man, but he used a monkey to do it.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 10:19 AM

Getting a bit thin, using my absurd nom de plume and trying to get into a deep thoughtful debate... However, onwards and downwards.

I too had not heard of young earth creationism but if the title is descriptive, I have huge issues taking anything Kent Davis says seriously. after all, if somebody starts a conversation with you by saying "Oh, by the way. You are a green frog and I am a dancing statue" you wouldn't want to discuss much of importance with them. So as the earth is, as a solidish orb, a few billion years old, and our understanding of science advances, this brings the debate full circle.

We started by asking if children should be excluded from music. well, music is a nice abstraction but in the final analysis, you can enjoy it when your silly parents are not around. Science however opens your mind to how the world works and if you make it your study, you can do something useful with your life afterwards with it. Like make the world a better place for us all.

I know Joe Offer tries (quite rightly) to take all views on board, but debating seriously with somebody who thinks dinosaurs were put there by some mythical being we call God just to test our faith.... Sorry, I'm not a psychiatrist, so not qualified to reason with irrational people, and feel sorry for Kent's kids because they will resent their parents in time to come, and that is sad.

I read somewhere in this thread that a vicar said "Scouting for Boys" has answers, the bible is full of questions. Well put. Not relevant as you do not need to answer questions put forward thousands of years ago and then translated a few times by people with their own agendas. But well put all the same.

Did make me think though. Perhaps a few priests read Scouting for Boys and misunderstood the title? (Sorry, couldn't resist it.)

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,SWEDEN
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:38 AM

From Sweden.
Who want to live in a muslim contry?
If mu slims kill Sweden artists, is it self defense to kill muslims?
Help to cure muslim children from islam and send this info to there internet HOME page.
"prophet" mohammed and islam is haram.
When mohammed was 50 year old he marry Aisha a 6 year old child and when Aisha was 9 year old mohammed rape her. "prophet" mohammed was a fucking pedophile and a slave owner so fuck him.
Girls read quran sura bina 60.
Watch and read mohammed T-shirt art from Sweden at,
http://www.mohammedt-shirt.com
Not mine ip nr

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:39 AM

Kent, I don't think anyone has equated those Muslims who want to withdraw their children from music lessons with fundamentalists, which in these days unfortunately has come to mean those with not only a fundamentalist view of their religion but a willingness to perpetrate violence to achieve its ends. They are simply those with a different interpretation of sharia from the majority view.

You talk about liberty, but the examples you give are not really "liberty" in the sense of being able to disregard the law. Rather they are examples where the legislature has recognised the need to incorporate exceptions into the law to accommodate particular circumstances. Something similar occurred here when it became mandatory for motorcyclists to wear helmets - Sikhs with their turbans were made an exception.

Your example of the Amish reflects a situation where there is a sizeable, if localised, community following a particular set of beliefs, where it may be possible to take account of their needs. However America is a large country with space to accommodate such groups, indeed it is part of the American culture that groups of people moved there to be able to follow their particular way of life. However the situation in the UK is a little different - we are a small and crowded country trying to accommodate people of many different cultural and religious backgrounds, often living alongside one another.

I am reluctant to keep talking about Islam, since I think the issue is a wider one, but it is relevant. There is pressure from some Muslim communities to be allowed to set up their own faith schools. The concern about this is that children attending these schools would not receive a sufficiently broad education in the culture of this country to help them to integrate. In many cases these are immigrant communities, some of them with little or no English and with a very different cultural outlook. There is no objection to them teaching their own culture and religion, but there is great concern that these communities are not becoming sufficiently integrated into wider British society, and that specifically Muslim schools could be an obstacle to this.

The difficulty with religious beliefs is that they are so varied. Where you have a sizeable and localised community, such as the Amish or some concentrations of minority communities in the UK, it may be feasible to accommodate their beliefs. Where the numbers are small and/or scattered it becomes more difficult. Where do you draw the line between recognised religions and crackpot superstitions? Should you draw a line? What about sincerely held beliefs which are not religious in origin?

Society as a whole creates laws to protect what it sees as being important to that society. Should members of that society then be free to pick and choose for themselves? It is fairly obvious (I think) that a born-again Aztec should not be permitted to carry out human sacrifice even if that is a central part of his religious practice. It is perhaps more difficult when it comes to a Rasta and marijuana.

To come back to the OP, the British government has decreed that music should be a core part of a child's education. However there are get-outs - the National Curriculum is only mandatory for state-run schools, it does not apply to independent schools or home schooling. To me this suggests that it is not an absolute requirement of our society, and that some flexibility should therefore be permitted.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:58 AM

Don, I have to say I'm not convinced by the "trespasses" theory you have put forward. Even in modern usage, the word has many meanings besides the legal one of trespass on land, even if that is its most common usage.

My history is a bit rusty, but my recollection is that trespass and poaching became a big issue after the 18th century enclosures, not the Tudor ones, which were far less widespread and caused less disruption to the rural way of life.

To my mind the theory that the word was put in by landowners to keep the peasants off their land is undermined by the following phrase in the Lord's Prayer, "as we forgive those who trespass against us".

The Book of Common Prayer was intended to be an inspirational text in a language which was itself undergoing a rapid and creative development, rather than an academic translation. It drew not only on early texts but on more recent translations. In the Authorised Version, the text varies between the Gospels. To my mind, "trespasses" in its meaning of "offences" is a much broader and more inclusive word than "debts". As a piece of literary writing, it gives the phrases rhythm and metre, which "debts" or "sins" lacks. I'm sure these are the reasons it was chosen for the BCP.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: LadyJean
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 12:37 AM

Two hundred years ago, my seven generations back grandfather, the Reverend Alexander Porter fell afoul of the Session in Abbeville South Carolina, because he preached against slavery.

His church split on the issue. The Anti Slavery faction made an impressive trip from South Carolina to southwestern Ohio, where they settled in a town called Fairhaven. (It's a wide spot on Ohio 177, which is a great drive if you're looking for a trip in the country.)

A few years after they came to Ohio, the church split again, this time over whether or not to have a pump organ at services. This time the pump organ faction moved ten miles down the road. (They were Presbyterians. Presbyterians can do a lot, but we can't get along.)

But tell me it didn't take guts to preach against slavery in South Carolina.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 12:31 AM

Bobert, you say, "Imagine no religion."

I say, "Well, I really enjoy it."

So, why not? Why suppress it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 11:28 PM

Worlds without religion (e.g. Soviet Union) haven't been paradises either. It's the people that are the problem.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:55 PM

Well, mouser, seems that it get's in people's way... Way 'o figurin' out how to live with one another??? I donno??? When it comes down to it no one else knows 'cause we ain't got it frigurated out too well up to now??? You know... That livin' together part...

Exhibit A: Isreal and the Palestinians...

B~

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:47 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:32 PM

"Imagine no religion" (John Lenon)...

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:02 PM

Or as Pastor Anderson said, questions, not necessarily answers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:23 PM

Hi, Don-
This page is a pretty good example of "Aramaic Versions" of the Lord's Prayer. Like I say, the original form was probably Aramaic, and the earliest versions we have (which are in Greek) show Aramaic linguistic patterns - BUT to get an Aramaic version, you have to translate back from the Greek and speculate what the original Aramaic may have been...and most probably then translate from Aramaic to English or another modern language. As you can see from the page I cited, the results are sometimes very pretentious and tend to reflect a number of trendy, modern schools of thought.
That being the case, I tend to discount translations of the Lord's Prayer that claim to come from the "authentic, original" Aramaic - since we have no ancient Aramaic documents that contain the Lord's Prayer.

But still, it does seem that "debts" is the more likely translation, rather than "trespasses." So, your conclusion is right, just not the path you took to get there.

And once again, it illustrates my Mainstream Protestant / Catholic / Reform Jewish / Unitarian / Quaker / Buddhist position: "It could mean this, and it could mean that; but there are worthwhile ideas to be derived from all perspectives."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM

Not really my theory, Joe. As I said, I was told this by someone who knows a whole lot more about it than I do. I have been a bit of a Bible scholar (occasionally force to be out of self-defence), but not as much as some folks of my acquaintance. Perhaps it was not the greatest example, but it was supposed to be illustrative if the manner in which texts were altered over a long period of time and the purposes for which they were altered.

Back in "historical times," I took a course in the University of Washington English Department in "The Bible as Literature." In it, we read large chunks of the Bible as stories, novellas, poetry, i.e., as literature (the prof promptly stepped on any sallies into religious interpretation or discussion).   So now, when someone starts quoting Bible verses out of context at me in an attempt to support some religious notion they happen to cherish, I'm often able to put it into context and tell them what it really said.

I'm pretty sure I don't really disabuse these folks of their goofy ideas, but it saves me wear and tear in that they usually tend to leave me alone.

I have talked to a number of folks who are pretty knowledgeable in the history of the Bible about such things as early copyists and their superiors altering texts to reflect personal hobby-horses. One piece of evidence for the veracity of this the number of differences between texts copied more or less simultaneously, but in different places.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:17 PM

Hmmm. An interesting thing is happening in this thread. People are taking the time to think and post some very thoughtful messages. As a result, they're posting responses to a variety of messages, and the discussion appears a bit disjointed. Nonetheless, there are a lot of very interesting messages posted here, from a wide variety of perspectives.

I can't say I've ever heard of the Young Earth Creationism that Kent speaks about and I tend to disagree with him because I'm a fairly strict Darwinist Catholic. Nonetheless, Kent has some very good things to say.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:02 PM

Don, I gotta say I have a hunch your theory about "trespasses" and poaching is apocryphal. Most Christian churches use "trespasses," while the Calvinist churches generally use "debts." The King James (Authorized) Version uses "debts," as does the New Revised Standard Version (which works really hard at adhering to the original Greek). The Latin text of the Catholic Church is "debitoribus" is obviously "debts." So, it seems to me that the "debts" have it, but a whole lot of people use "trespasses."

But to use the Aramaic Lord's Prayer as a proof text is problematic. It's quite probable that the original wording was Aramaic, but there are no "original" Aramaic texts. So, what you have to do is extrapolate from the Greek to determine what the original Aramaic might have been. Modern linguists can do this quite well, but it's still an extrapolation. It's an interesting exercise, however, since the extrapolation sometimes clarifies what had been difficult to understand in the Greek. But although the New Testament often follows Aramaic language patterns, the earliest texts we have are Greek.

All that being said, I have to say I don't think that in context, there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference between the meaning of "trespasses" and "debts." It's just nice when people are praying together, that they use the same words.

And all this serves to illustrate a point I wanted to make: I think that "mainstream" Protestant and Catholic and Reform Jewish scripture scholars agree fairly well on the meaning of Scripture:

"It could mean this. Then again, it could mean that. But maybe it means the other thing. But in any case, isn't it interesting?"

This, of course, drives the fundamentalists crazy, since they're comfortable only with certainty. It drives many atheists crazy, too, because it's impossible to argue with uncertainty. And many atheists seek the same thing fundamentalists seek: certainty. The Fundamentalists are certain that there Is, and some atheists are certain that there Is Not.

I have to say that I think the Mainstream Protestant/Catholic/Reform Jewish position is correct: all of it can mean a number of things. Unitarians and Buddhists and many Quakers (and a bunch of others) seem to hold that same position. And I think their answer is this: Is/Is Not, is not the question.

And that's OK.

Now, I have to say that here is where I have a problem with many atheists - they cannot accept the "Mainstream Protestant / Catholic / Reform Jewish / Unitarian / Buddhist / Quaker" view of Scripture, because they don't know what it is they're supposed to disagree with. I have a problem with many atheists because they want to tell me what I believe, and then vehemently disagree with what they think I believe. They cannot accept uncertainty. They cannot accept that there are questions we cannot answer, or questions that have an infinite number of answers.

I guess what I believe is that there really are no answers - there are only wonderful questions to explore. At this point in my exploration, I am here, and the view from here is terrific. So, let's have a pint and talk about it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 08:01 PM

Mousethief,

I never said that "a fundamentalist is someone who is going back to the fundamentals of Christianity". I said that a fundamentalist PROTESTANT is someone who is going back to the fundamentamentals of PROTESTANTISM.

In fact, I emphatically deny that Protestant fundamentalists go back to the fundamentals of CHRISTIANITY. That is the very reason I left fundamentalism and Protestantism. If they did go back to the fundamentals of Christianity itself, back to before Luther and Calvin, back to before the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split, before even the Nicene creed, back to the New Testament itself, they would simply be Christians.

However, many of the fundamentals of Protestantism ARE mentioned in the Nicene Creed. For example:
1. God the Creator
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen..."
2. The Deity of Christ
"...We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being, with the Father..."
3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
"...by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man."
4. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit
"...We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets..."
5. The Crucifixion
"...he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
6. The Atonement
"...For our sake he was crucified..."
7. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead
"...On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures..."
8. Judgment to Come
"... he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,..."

You will notice that these are the very teachings which are common to the fundamentalist Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Roman Catholic Church, but which some "Modernist" Protestants deny.

My point is that the term "fundamentalist" does not mean whatever you or I or Billy Graham want it to mean. The fundamentals of Protestantism are a matter of historical record. If you and I decide, for example, that refusal to listen to jazz is "Protestant fundamentalism", then you and I are simply wrong. Opposition to jazz is not fundamental to Protestantism. That is the historical fact. If Preacher Jones of the First Fundamental Church of Lower Podunk says otherwise, then he is wrong too.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 07:31 PM

You are undoubtedly right, frogprince, but so far, the vast majority of fundamentalists/literalists that I've run into, including lately, still cling fiercely to the King James, referring to other translations as "revisionist," sometimes "blasphemous revisionism."

Ebbie, the word "trespass" does have a number of meanings, all similar, but I was told by a pretty reputable Bible scholar that the early Bible manuscripts did quote Jesus as saying either "debt" or "sin." So "trespass" could be excused as a loose translation. But at the time the word was inserted in the King James translation, people "trespassing" on the lands of aristocrats, especially poachers, was considered a major problem. And since some of the translators were aristocrats. . . .

Or so I was told by someone who knew much more about it than I did.

####

By the way, I am always astounded by the way in which fundamentalists/literalists, feel that it's perfectly acceptable to support any outrageous belief they care to come up with (for example, the whole schtick about "The Rapture") by carefully "cherry-picking" hitherto unrelated verses from various widespread places in the Bible and putting them together like a Rube Goldberg invention.

The Reverend Barbara R. Rossing (I heard her speak in Seattle a few years ago) has done a whole analysis of "The Rapture" in a book entitled The Rapture Exposed (she wanted to title it The Rapture Racket, but her publisher chickened out), showing just how the whole idea was cobbled up by piecing together previously unrelated verses from various parts of the Bible to come up with a whole new Apocalyptic scenario, and how the author, the Rev. Tim LeHaye, has made a fortune ($60,000,000 last I heard) writing best-selling novels about "The End Times."

If you go to the link, then cllck on "Look Inside," you can actually read parts of what Rev. Rossing wrote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 07:08 PM

Howard Jones,

You are absolutely right that "...the sharia laws of Islam are based not only on the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet, but on how these have been interpreted over the ages. It is in these interpretations that differences arise." However, the differences that have arisen in this manner are not the differences which define fundamentalists versus modernists. The differences you refer to are those which define,for example, the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or between various sub-groups (Twelvers, Sufis, etc.)

I also agree whole-heartedly that the most important question is about how we reconcile religious beliefs with the laws and norms of our society when they conflict. You ask some very interesting questions: "Should we allow some people to break the law because it conflicts with their own beliefs, or are some laws not considered important enough to matter? If the latter, should people then be allowed to break them for reasons other than religion? If they are not that important, should they be law in the first place? If a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jedi Knight for that matter, feels that for religious reasons their children should not attend music lessons, should a Flatearther be allowed to withdraw their children from Geography lessons? Should a Creationist withdraw from Biology lessons? Where should we draw the line?"

I would say that legislators should minimize conflict between the law and individual conscience by maximizing liberty. In 1917, American law sent many conscientious objectors to prison because they refused to fight in W.W.I. In subsequent wars, members of the "peace churches" were allowed to serve in non-combat roles. Currently, there is no draft in the U.S. Those who wish to may become join the military. Those who do not wish to join (for whatever reason) don't have to join. I like that.

Currently there is a conflict between American law and Rastafarian practice in regard to marijuana. If marijuana use were legal, there would be no conflict.

Holmes County, Ohio, has the largest Amish population anywhere in the world. As you know, the Amish have distinctive ideas about many things, including the education of their children, and thus there is great potential for conflict with the state. The solution in Holmes County is that the Amish pay their property taxes and maintain a separate Amish public system, with Amish teachers.

I am a young-earth creationist. The public school curricula in the U.S. teach that young-earth creationism is false. I do not wish to subject my children to indoctrination in ideas which I believe are false. That is one reason we home-school. We are free to choose, and have chosen, a curriculum that we believe is true. Other families make different choices. They have liberty and so do we.

Where should we draw the line? The government should enforce Maybury's Laws (contract law - "Do all you have agreed to do" and common law - "Do not encroach on other persons or their property.") The law should include only that which is truly necessary to achieve those ends. Obviously, we are a long way from this ideal and, in my opinion, movement toward this end should be done gradually. A good starting place would be to stop passing MORE laws. If we have muddled along for all these centuries without a particular law, it seems likely that we don't really need it. If we don't really need it, then it diminishes our liberty without good cause.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:07 PM

A fundamentalist is someone who believes the fundamentals, the basics, of a faith. The fundamentals of a faith are NOT whatever anyone wishes them to be. They are defined historically and, for faiths that are based on documents, by those documents.

This implies the scriptures are self-explanatory. The sheer number of Christian denominations should give the lie to that. Every Christian church claims it is founded "on the documents" -- even those with wildly divergent beliefs. In order for the Christian people who claim to be "fundamentalists" in the sense of basing their faith on "the fundamentals" to really be basing their faith on the real fundamentals, they have to be objectively fundamental. And there is nothing objective in Christian theology. Nothing. It really is that they are deciding what is fundamental, and claiming to be fundamentalists on the basis thereof.

Kent, if a fundamentalist is someone who is going back to the fundamentals of Christianity, then why is their interpretation of the Bible a post-Enlightenment novelty? Of the "fundamentals" they define, how many are mentioned in the Nicene Creed? Surely if any definition of "Christian fundamentals" deserves the name, it is this original one, not the one written in Niagara Falls 1500 years later. And yet there is nothing about the infallability of the Scriptures in the Creed.

In point of historical fact, the so-called "Fundamentals" you link to are a reaction to higher criticism and Victorian liberalism, not an objective, disinterested setting forth of historic Christianity. If you want historic Christianity, you could hardly do worse than to look at the Catholic or Orthodox churches -- there is Christianity going back to the beginning, not invented anew in the 16th, or 19th, century.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:01 PM

"An example is that the translation from the Aramaic (which is the language that Jesus spoke), the word in the Lord's Prayer is "forgive us our debts" (or "sins"). This was changed to "forgive us our trespasses" because the aristocracy wanted to establish "trespassing" or poaching on their lands as not just a crime, but a sin against God." Don Firth

Is that literally true, Don? It seems far more likely to me that 'trespass' first referred to a transgression, rather that an unlawful encroachment on someone's land.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Taconicus
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:41 PM

First of all, the thread is misnamed. You're talking about a particular religion denying music to children. There's certainly nothing in the Christian or Jewish traditions that denies or discourages music to children. On the contrary. I went to grade school back when the students in American public schools said prayers every morning. We also had "assembly" every day in which the entire school was led in (secular) song. Neither is done anymore here.

However, a case could be made that modern folk music sometimes does its best to keep religion from children (and others). If you look at the original sources of traditional folk music, you'll often find verses relating to religion that somehow never made it to the modern versions sung today in folk circles.

For example, look at these verses from the original poem "Farewell to Tarwathie" by George Scroggie that you've never heard if you only listened to the Judy Collins version of the song by the same name.

May He who never slumbers
From danger us keep,
While viewing his wonders
On the mighty deep.

And you my dear mother,
O weep not for me,
But trust in His mercy
That ruleth the sea.

Who saves on the ocean
As well's on the land,
For we are all guarded
By His mighty hand.

He rides on the billows
And walks on the wave--
His arm is powerful
To sink or to save.

And though I be absent
You need never fear;
There's no place so distant
But God will be there.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:32 PM

I just want to affirm how much I enjoy Joe Offer's "offerings" to this post.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:23 PM

"the King James version, which is generally considered by most Christian fundamentalists and literalists to be the One True Bible"

This is something of a nit-pick, Don, but I do think that is something of an exaggeration, at least in recent years. It was very true a few decades back, when the Revised Standard Version was fiercely condemned as a liberal perversion. There are still more than a handful of fundamentalists, and small denominations, for whom it is true; there are at least a scattering of officially titled "King James Bible Churches". But quite a few fundamentalists now accept the "Living Bible" translation, which is based on rather thin scholarship and carries a bias toward dispensationalism. A substantial number of fundamentalists now also accept the "New International Version", Which is actually based on a lot of honest scholarship. But I don't know that there is more than marginal advantage in applying rigid literalism and authoritarianism to a sound Bible translation as opposed to a shakey one.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:02 PM

A huge number of people seem to want to deal with disagreement by the suppression of thinking that conflicts with their own. This "suppressive" philosophy seems to be found throughout the full spectrum of philosophical and religious thinking, but particularly at the extreme ends. There are atheists who cannot bear to hear religious ideas, and there are "God-botherers" who cannot stand it if a "Godless atheist" opens his/her mouth.

These people seem to think that the purpose of education is indoctrination, teaching what to think instead of how to think. How do you deal with people like this in a school system, and in other public arenas? I honestly don't know. I feel that public schools here in California have catered too much to these interests, to the point that many things cannot be spoken of in California schools for fear of offending one group or another. That's part of the reason why I sent my kids to Catholic schools in the 1980s. In recent years, the forces of suppressive Catholics have been attacking Catholic schools in my area. They've had success in some local Catholic elementary schools, but so far not in the Catholic high schools and colleges in this area. [I homeschooled my stepson for four years, until he graduated from high school two years ago. I'm quite pleased with the results. My own kids turned out pretty well, too - and please note that my stepson and my children do not consider themselves to be Catholic.]

I think one way to deal with this issue, is to avoid all attempts to use schools for indoctrination for any purpose, no matter how noble. Even the teaching of patriotism can be detrimental to real education. Recognize that the job of education is to expose students to ideas and information, and teach them to use their own intellects to evaluate those ideas. That demands fairly strict impartiality, and I think it also requires respect for all schools of thought, both religious and nonreligious. If Muslims and Christian fundamentalists and atheists are convinced that schools are respectful of them and of what is sacred to them, that may go a long way toward assuaging their fears about what will happen to their children in schools.

-Joe Offer, "Radical Moderate"-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 04:36 PM

That Wikipedia article is most interesting, but when push comes to shove, Mousethief is essentially right.

Fundamentalists may think they believe in the fundamentals of their religion, but among Christian fundamentalists—perhaps a better word would be "literalists"—that generally consists of believing that the Bible is the literal word of God, i.e., there really was a Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were real people (therefore, evolution is the work of the Devil), Moses really did part the Red Sea, Mary really was a virgin, and on and on ad nauseum.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Bible knows that it was assembled pretty arbitrarily from a vast number of old scrolls and manuscripts, and that the selection of what's in and what's out was based on the beliefs and prejudices of those putting it together. But once all that was decided, there was the reproduction of it—copying it. Since a great deal of the copying was done by hand by scribes in monasteries (this being long before the invention of the printing press), often the scribes, or more frequently, the abbot or the local bishop, would make changes in the texts to reflect their own ideas.

Then come the various translations (back and forth between Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and into local [vulgar] languages). In the King James version, which is generally considered by most Christian fundamentalists and literalists to be the One True Bible (the translators being inspired by God), many words and passages were altered to reflect the viewpoint of the king and of the aristocracy in general. An example is that the translation from the Aramaic (which is the language that Jesus spoke), the word in the Lord's Prayer is "forgive us our debts" (or "sins"). This was changed to "forgive us our trespasses" because the aristocracy wanted to establish "trespassing" or poaching on their lands as not just a crime, but a sin against God.

These points are not just my half-assed ideas. They come from theologians and Bible scholars who are trying to get a clear view of the Bible's history and composition, and are trying to ferret out such things as what Jesus most likely actually said (a monumental task!) rather than words that might have been put into His mouth by various translators and self-appointed editors.

Pastor Shannon Anderson of Seattle's Central Lutheran Church once held up a copy of the Bible and said firmly, "This is not the Boy Scout Manual. It is a book filled with questions, not answers!"

This, in response to the fundamentalists and literalists.

I imagine the same holds true for interpretations of the literature, myths, and legends of all religious beliefs.

As Joseph Campbell so wisely said, "Where religious believers go wrong is when they assume that their mythology is literal, historical truth."

Don Firth

P. S. When I was a kid (ten-ish or so), we had some neighbors whose children were not allowed to go to movies as the rest of us kids were. Radio was also forbidden (no "Lone Ranger," no "Jack Armstrong, the All-American Boy," no "I Love a Mystery"). No Sunday comics either. Dancing was a sin. And music, other than hymns, was also forbidden. And they weren't allowed to come out and play on Sundays.

Somehow, their parents had got all of this out of the Bible (though where the Bible mentions movies or the Lone Ranger radio program, I've never been able to find).

The rest of us kids could hardly believe what we considered to be the cruelty of their parents. We pitied those kids.

By the way, some of us did go to Sunday School. But not at the same church our neighbors went to.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 11:22 AM

"It is about how we reconcile religious beliefs with the laws and norms of our society when they conflict."

Exactly!
And indeed with particular reference to what we consider to be the rights of children, and our obligations to them.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: olddude
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 11:12 AM

Mcgrath
you are so right, generalization is something I should not be doing or anyone else for that matter. I stand corrected ... Just tried to say that usually problems that occur in religion are not because of faith but because of leadership distortion .. but as a work in progress that I am ... I should not at any time generalize ... and I appreciate when people point that out to me ..

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:35 AM

Kent, I'm no expert but I've a feeling that so far as Islam is concerned it's a little more complicated. If I've got it right, the sharia laws of Islam are based not only on the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet, but on how these have been interpreted over the ages. It is in these interpretations that differences arise.

However this is not principally about Islam, or fundamentalism, whether Muslim or Christian. It is about how we reconcile religious beliefs with the laws and norms of our society when they conflict. Should we allow some people to break the law because it conflicts with their own beliefs, or are some laws not considered important enough to matter? If the latter, should people then be allowed to break them for reasons other than religion? If they are not that important, should they be law in the first place?

If a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jedi Knight for that matter, feels that for religious reasons their children should not attend music lessons, should a Flatearther be allowed to withdraw their children from Geography lessons? Should a Creationist withdraw from Biology lessons? Where should we draw the line?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Phil Beer
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:25 AM

I subscribe to no belief system despite being brought up in a large family of staunch methodists. However, that particular institution is mostly responsible for my interest in music. Singing around the piano was a regular event in our household and my cornish grandmothers household when we were very young. I still have some of the hymnbooks and other things from that time. 'Faith, folk and clarity' entered our household soon after it was published and to this day I still sing Sydney Carters 'Crow on the cradle'. I believe many others came to music of all kinds in this way.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 10:10 AM

Now then, there's a thing....

I reckon if Joe and I did have that pint, and Joe was "in the chair" so to speak, he hasn't quite taken into account my capacity for beer.

There again, I haven't taken into account Joe's faith.

Might be an interesting evening.

Bring a bib.




That aside, I still maintain that religious organisations are inherently about us versus them, getting as many people as possible to be "us" so we can subjugate them, oh, and the "us" can be controlled by the leaders of the religion.

It's all about power over others.

The bit about fundamentalists misinterpreting scripture is an interesting point too. I would put it to those who say that, that any interpretation is just that, an interpretation. Now, to the rest of us, there are interpretations that are about love and peace, and interpretations about killing the unbelievers. I know which I, as an outsider prefer, but all the same, they are both just interpretations. Both put forward as "truth."   Ironic on two counts then....

I am not on an anti religion rant, never have been. My Gran was not scared of dying because she was going to a better place. Me? When I go, it will be to zero, void, blank, nothing... and that's scary. So religion can have a place, as a crutch, a moral compass and for many people, a social outlet. No, I don't dismiss the joy that many people get from their faith. I just get hot under the collar when it is allowed to interfere with me or anything that affects me. if stamp collectors managed to get shops to shut on a Tuesday afternoon for some bizarre reason, I would be having a pop at them in the same way I cannot get into B&Q after 4.00pm on a Sunday. (Strange, I ALWAYS need screws, nuts, bolts, hacksaw blades and paint after the ruddy thing shuts, and always on a Sunday.)

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:08 AM

Mousethief,

You wrote, "But a "fundamentalist" believes what they think are the fundamentals. If they think that Islam fundamentally forbids music, then it doesn't matter what you think or what twenty imams think are really and truly the fundamental aspects of Islam -- they are sticking to their fundamentals. Just like there are Christians who think hating homosexuals is one of the Christian fundamentals."

If a term means whatever anyone at all claims that it means, then all terms mean everything, and thus nothing means anything.

It is certainly true that "a 'fundamentalist' believes what they think are the fundamentals". However, since EVERYBODY believes what he or she thinks are the fundamentals, we can't define fundamentalism in those terms. I do not know what you believe, but I'm sure that YOU believe what YOU think are the fundamentals. Yet you are not (as far as I know) a fundamentalist.

A fundamentalist is someone who believes the fundamentals, the basics, of a faith. The fundamentals of a faith are NOT whatever anyone wishes them to be. They are defined historically and, for faiths that are based on documents, by those documents. If the faith in question is Islam, the document is the Koran.

Since the Koran does NOT say that one should deny music to children, then that idea is not, and cannot be, an aspect of Islamic fundamentalism. Whether or not anyone actually claims that denying music to children is some sort of Sixth Pillar of Islam, I don't know. I do know that, if such a person exists, he or she is not an Islamic fundamentalist, but is instead a heretic from Islam.

Similarly, I do not know whether or not anyone actually claims that hating homosexuals is a fundamental part of Protestantism. I do know that, if such a person exists, he or she is not a Protestant fundamentalist, but is instead a heretic from Protestantsim.

Kent

P.S. I have spent a lifetime among Protestant fundamentalists and I have NEVER heard anyone claim that hating homosexuals is a fundamental of their faith. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, every single fundamentalist that I have ever met has believed that hating ANYONE was FORBIDDEN by their faith. Even fundamentalists who actually do hate someone will tell you that they should not, and that their faith forbids it.

P.P.S. Those interested in what Protestant fundamentalists actually believe may be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:41 AM

Jack, I share your concern at the cutbacks, music is seen as an easy target. I question whether it's just "capitalist" though, or whether a socialist administration would make different choices, but that's for a different debate.

However the music cutbacks Midlothian (and probably other authorities) are threatening are to do with one-to-one instrument tuition (again, there's scope for discussion over whether this should be funded by the taxpayer, but not here). These LEAs will presumably be continuing with their statutory responsibilities to provide at least some music education in accordance with the National Curriculum, whereas some religiously-motivated parents want to withdraw their children from all music education. That's the difference.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:12 AM

Religion isn't the problem. Capitalist managerialism is:

campaign against music cuts in Midlothian

The council is planning far more deprivation than the most deranged fundie parent.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:35 AM

This thread has drifted away considerably from its original topic and the change of title hasn't helped, although I fully understand Joe's reasons for changing it. However I fear it has now drifted into territory where people are simply expressing their prejudices, rather than discussing what is an important topic, which is how far a largely secular society should bend to accommodate religious beliefs.

Does religion deny music to children (or anyone else for that matter)? The answer, clearly, is usually no, but sometimes yes, as the subject of the OP demonstrates.

Music is one of the statutory subjects which must be studied in state schools in the UK, at least up to Key Stage 3 (13-14 years old). It follows that if schools allow parents to withdraw their pupils from studying these subjects they are technically breaking the law. Should they do this, or should they respect the parents' views? Does it matter that the parents' views are a minority interpretation not shared by most of their co-religionists?

Is music an appropriate subject on which to make this an issue? I'm sure none of us on this forum would question the importance of music, but it is something which can be enjoyed and appreciated without formal education in the subject (otherwise we would not have folk music). Arguably, depriving children of education in music is less damaging than some other subjects.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:13 AM

If the term "fundamentalist" means anything other than "a person whom I hate", it should logically mean, and originally did mean, "a person who believes the fundamentals, the basics, of Protestantism or, by extension, who believes the fundamentals of any religion".

But a "fundamentalist" believes what they think are the fundamentals. If they think that Islam fundamentally forbids music, then it doesn't matter what you think or what twenty imams think are really and truly the fundamental aspects of Islam -- they are sticking to their fundamentals. Just like there are Christians who think hating homosexuals is one of the Christian fundamentals.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 11:46 PM

Steamin' Willie sez:

Whenever somebody points out the bigotry that is intrinsic in religion as a concept, they are accused of being bigoted. A bit circular, as arguments go; opposing bigotry makes you a bigot? Looks like I need a pint.

Well, yes, but first you have to prove your contention that bigotry is "intrinsic in religion as a concept." I'll readily agree that bigotry is often found in religious groups (and in many other groups) and that many people use religion as a rationalization for their bigotry, but that's a horse of a different color. It seems to me that at its root, religion is idealistic and altruistic. You know, Golden Rule and Good Samaritan and all that.
So, Willie, let's have that pint and then you can tell me how I'm so inherently bigoted. Come to think of it, that might take two or three pints. And if you can prove that bigotry is "intrinsic in religion as a concept," I'll pay the tab.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 11:11 PM

Does religion deny music to children? Nope.

Does Islam deny music to children? No.

Does Islamic fundamentalism deny music to children? No. The Koran does NOT say that one should deny music to children. If the term "fundamentalist" means anything other than "a person whom I hate", it should logically mean, and originally did mean, "a person who believes the fundamentals, the basics, of Protestantism or, by extension, who believes the fundamentals of any religion". Music-denial is not a "fundamental" of Islam, therefore it cannot be a tenet of Islamic fundamentalism.

Do some parents object to the content of the musical curriculum in government schools in the U.K. Apparently.

Don T. wrote, at 5:37, on July 2, "I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Ollie Cromwell and his merry band of Puritans, who carried the denial of music and dance to the extreme limit of actually killing people who dared to show, publicly, any enjoyment of life, or colour of dress.." and at 6:58 p.m. on July 4 wrote, "It wasn't the religious who went around killing anyone who sang, danced, or displayed a little joie de vivre, it was the fundamentalists who chose the most extreme interpretation of Christ's message, and espoused the most Draconian of punishments".

What those modern British Muslim parents have to do with the Puritans, I don't know. I do know that the Puritans were great lovers of music: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1956/1/1956_1_65.shtml

As to claims about "Puritan fundamentalists", the fact is that those who accepted the fundamentals of Puritanism were...simply Puritans. Those who were more extreme than the Puritans, who went beyond the fundamentals of Puritanism, were the Quakers, the Diggers, and the Levellers. If there is ANY evidence whatsoever that either the Puritans, the Quakers, the Diggers, the Levellers, or ANY similar group, ever killed even ONE person for singing, I would like to see that evidence. Even more, I would like to see the evidence that they killed, not just one person, but "anyone" who sang.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Betsy
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 08:07 PM

Vin and I were taught "Down by the Sally Gardens" by Mrs Crowe and Mrs O'Sullivan at South Bank St. Peters Napier St.Shoool at the age of 7 Years. (1954 -ish) Also "Oh the days of the Kerry Piper" , and " With her one eye on the pot and the other up he chimney" - and more.
Innocent days and as kids we were treated well
I am a happily married 60 + person and so is Vin.
I understand problems which have emerged within the Catholic Church, but thinking back , Mrs Crowe and Mrs O'Sullivan would have probably liked (in our time) to be referred to, as Ms.Crowe and Ms. O'Sullivan.
Life was different so then to now.
God Bless 'em for teaching us so wonderful music in our formative years - and you can stick rap where you feel fit !!!

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 06:58 PM

""I agree that some of Cromwell's more extreme followers may not have liked music and dancing, but The Dancing Master would not have required three editions during the Commonwealth if dancing had been totally suppressed or at best it would have circulated as a clandestine publication rather than being on open sale.""

Doesn't that equate to what I was saying, and rather neatly help to make my point.

It wasn't the religious who went around killing anyone who sang, danced, or displayed a little joie de vivre, it was the fundamentalists who chose the most extreme interpretation of Christ's message, and espoused the most Draconian of punishments, then, as fundamentalists always do, completly misunderstood the point of his teachings.

Ollie, bless his political little heart, merely supplied them with the environment and gave them the authority, both of which they used to the fullest extent.

Bottom line is, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether you are in Baghdad, Teheran, Delhi, Tel Aviv, or the American Bible Belt. The fundamentalists will be there with their hateful attitude to anybody who doesn't comply with their criteria.

So bash the bloody fundies by all means, but don't conflate religion itself with repression. Read the Q'ran, the Bible and the Torah (Talmud?), and what is immediately obvious, is the fact that most fundies have vastly misinterpreted almost everything they "know" about what it says.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:53 PM

Good one, Jerry!

There was a fellow who was notorious for being a hard drinker, womanizer, and in general, an all around louse. One day, in a serious moment, he sat down to re-evaluate his life and he didn't like what he saw.

The following day, he ran into the pastor of the local church on the street, and he told the pastor, "Reverend, I'd like to start coming to church."

The pastor got his neck in a bow and said, "Well, considering your notorious behavior, I don't think we'd really care for you to come to our church."

"But," said the ex-reprobate, "I thought church was about repentance, forgiveness, and new starts. Why don't you want me to come to your church?"

The pastor said, "Well, I suggest that you get down on your knees and ask God about that." And he turned on his heel and stalked off.

The following day, the two encountered each other again.

"Reverend, I did what you said. I got down on my knees and I asked God why you wouldn't welcome me into your church."

"Oh?" said the pastor. "And did God answer you?"

"Yes! Indeed He did!"

The pastor does a double-take, then asks, "What did He say to you?"

"God told me not to worry about it. He said that He wasn't welcome in your church either!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:24 PM

I didn't realize this kind of stuff was still being discussed. I'll add a joke to lighten things up.

A man was speaking to the pastor of a church, and the minister invited him to come and hear a service. The man said, "I don't want to be in a church full of hypocrits," The Pastor responded, "That's alright, we always have room for one more."

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM

< rant on >

Sorry, but once again I have to protest against that blanket generalization that religion per se is evil.

That prejudice ("All Indians walk in single file. At least the one I saw did!") is hard to reconcile with what many churches do in the community especially during difficult times, when lots of people are unemployed, homeless, and often going hungry. Or doing such things as providing a haven, complete with friendly social interaction, for "outcast" groups, such as developmentally disabled adults. These and many other things without trying to cram their beliefs down the throats of the recipients, such as making them "pay for the soup by listening to the sermon."

I personally know a pastor who has spent a lot of time in jail for being on the front line in peace demonstrations (now, some people would regard that as "evil") and for such things as acting as a spokesman for a group elderly, low-income folks (living on Social Security) who were being evicted from their low-rent apartment building because the landlord wanted to refurbish the building and turn it into luxury condominiums. Said landlord obviously didn't give diddly-squat for what his elderly tenants were supposed to do or where they were going to live (lots of bridges in the area to live under), and this pastor felt the situation should be called to people's attention.

So they threw him in jail.

But his actions inspired a number of other churches in the area to form a coalition to find, or build, housing for low income people.

While, I might add, a lot of more secular people and groups merely said "Tsk tsk!" did nothing, and just sat around with their thumbs up their—noses.

And this pastor is not the only one, by any means.

One of the legitimate functions of religion, at least according to a bloke named Jesus, is to take care of "the least of these, my brothers and sisters." And sometimes doing this pisses off a lot of people who need to be given a good wedgie!

True, there are many—too many—"Christian" (AND Muslim. AND Jewish) religious groups who have lost sight of what their religion is supposed to be all about (at least according to their "Founders"), but these groups are not as much religious as they are political.

Blame individual groups, yes. But to blame religion in general IS bigotry.

And someone else's bigotry does not excuse your own!

Thus endeth the sermon for this Sunday,

< rant off >

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 12:54 PM

Religion...on the whole...is usually evil or border line evil.

But:
I don't want to generalize for that is wrong

I suppose the way to reconcile those two sentences is assume that olddude feels obliged against his will to do something he recognises as being wrong, namely, generalise.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 12:54 PM

Just had a read through... mmm..

Perhaps this should be in the BS threads after all. Mainly because it follows the same format as religious BS threads as far as I can see.

Whenever somebody points out the bigotry that is intrinsic in religion as a concept, they are accused of being bigoted. A bit circular, as arguments go; opposing bigotry makes you a bigot? Looks like I need a pint.

the article is a bit scare mongering, but serves a purpose for those who pushed the statistic. Many families who had never thought about it one way or the other may read it and wonder if they should forbid their children too. The idea then grows legs. It has parallels with the Daily M*il "newspaper" who did a story saying a head teacher made kids wear safety goggles to play conkers. At the time of the "article" it existed in the head of the mischievous reporter. Some head teachers and Local Education authority managers read it and thought "Perhaps we should too." before long, the story became true due to copy cat....

Seems to me that somebody wishes to inflict control on their communities by the way they know best; religion   

Religion found music when it realised it was a medium with which to push propaganda. I love playing Bach, or used to before breaking my wrist, but I can listen and enjoy, full stop. just like i can see a garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies at the bottom of it.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:57 PM

This is a different thread, not just different title. Not even I would claim that one of the evils of religion is that it is pedagogically anti-musical....

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:31 PM

Thanks for posing that, Andrew! That's the one!

No recording can really capture the sound—and the feel—of one of those monster pipe organs. The whole building, sometimes a massive cathedral, becomes part of the instrument. When the organist romps on those pedals and the big bass pipes cut it, the floor vibrates, the whole building vibrates, and you vibrate!

More than just a little impressive. All that thunder at the organist's fingertips (and toes). No wonder, as Prof. Cowell said, the organist can start feeling omnipotent and get a bit confused as to their place in the hierarchy.

Don Firth

P. S. Yeah, Kevin. A lot better!

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:15 PM

It's pretty damn dishonest to make a scene about some parents not wanting their kids to get an education in music at a time when a fanatical minority of fundamentalist capitalists wants to eliminate music entirely from school curricula across the whole country (it has almost vanished in Midlothian already). What proportion of kids does THAT affect? Get real.