Does Religion Deny Music to Children?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 04:49 AM

Well, Willie, I suppose I'd have a different take on it. I look on scriptures as resource documents, the "founding statements" of religious groups. Some people use scriptures to control people, but a good many don't. And you really won't find many religions that condone "raping women, slaughtering children and genocide as an article of faith," even if their forebears may have done some of that in earlier times.

If you attribute something to religion and then ask, "Why would a reasonable person do something like that" - well, probably reasonable religious people wouldn't do it, either.

And as for your use of the word "superstition" in connection with religion, well, I'd question that, too. It seems that you're equating "superstition" with religious faith. I would say that "superstition" is believing in things that defy the laws of nature. But a lot of people with religious faith believe very firmly in the laws of nature - how can they be superstitious? I see a "divine essence" in the wonders of nature and humanity that surround me, but I don't see any manipulation of the rules of nature going on.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 04:36 AM

Don, you make a good point. it is religious people, not religion that is the issue. But that is a stance that may make sense, but is ultimately frustrating. If they do things in the name of a religion, it is a description of that religion. as a religion is an abstract formed by people, then any action in it's name forms part of it's whole. Like it or lump it. And the constitution of said religion does not help. Bible, Koran, whatever.. All talk about raping women, slaughtering children and genocide as an article of faith.

Mousethief. There is no such thing as an atheist. I reckon it to be a term of slur used by those who recognise religion. There is no term of reference for somebody who doesn't collect stamps, (antiphilatelist?) no word to describe somebody who doesn't follow football, (weird person?) no word to describe etc etc... So why a word to describe somebody who doesn't give superstition a second thought?

I am not an atheist, I am, to coin a phrase I heard by Jeremy Clarkson that I am comfortable with, irreligious. Even then, I am not comfortable with having a term to describe my stance.   Atheism by definition means no belief in anything, or ultimately chaos. As I said above, I can prove that f=ma, therefore there is not chaos. therefore atheism is a belief of its own rather than a sneering term used by superstitious people about people who are somewhat more rational when it comes to moral compass thoughts.

There are many civilisations. In fact all of them. it isn't praying for crops and sacrificing children that gives the harvest, it is the toil and sweat of planting and collecting. it isn't asking a deity to build shelter, it is people with daub, reed whatever. Now... at some point in any civilisation, you have to ensure the masses don't rise up because the leaders are more comfortable than them. You need a tool to keep them down. Can you guess what it is yet?

As i said, if we didn't have religion, we would have to invent it. Scriptures, wonderful stories some of them, (apart from the condoning oppression, genocide etc,) can make a good moral compass, morals to compare your actions with, and that ain't a bad thing if that's what you need. The problem being, said scriptures are part of controlling the masses, so by their existence, they are about ensuring everybody else sings from the same hymn sheet, (literally in some cases.)

And that is Willie's beef. And that is why Willie gets a bit hot under the collar where religions try to control society. Here in The UK, we have an issue at the moment where the Archbishop of Canterbury is sitting on the fence again regarding ordaining a gay bishop. the Prime Minister may have to intervene, (see? our politicians have to make the appointments, hence giving credence to the supremacy in law of religion.) We have laws, good or bad, concerning equality. How can a religion wish to be recognised under UK law and at the same time ignore equality? yet... they seem to think they can. That makes it a bigoted, and sadly illegal in the strict sense of the word, organisation. And they sit in the Lords, our upper house, pontificating over laws passed by our elected parliament.

You couldn't make it up.

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

Well, organizations such as the American Ethical Union and Atheists and Other Freethinkers provide a non-theistic substitute for religion. Many of the functions of religious denominations are laudable, but not necessarily only for those who believe in a God.

But are those organizations "atheist" or "humanist"? You could get bogged down in a battle of words.

But many non-theistic people find a need to discuss things in a philosophical context, or need a structure through which to perform service to others.

Still, "atheism" implies an opposition to religion, rather than simply not believing in God. I have no quarrel with people who don't believe what I believe - but it's different if they are actively opposed to what they think I believe.

Goose Gander, I can't "name a civilization that was based upon the absence of belief" - but I can name plenty for which belief was not a necessary element. "Godless Communism" may require atheism; but atheism is not really an inherent aspect of Communism, which is primarily an economic system.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 03:23 AM

"After the Battle of Jericho, Joshua murdered all of the Canaanites. Should we conclude that all Jews are mass murderers?"

No, we shouldn't. That, more or less, was Joe's point. Duh.

A question for the atheists: can you name a civilization that was based upon the absence of belief?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 03:18 AM

But really let's go further than that. "Religion" is an abstract noun. Abstract nouns don't do anything. [i]Religious people[/i] do things. Similarly, Atheism is an abstract noun. [i]Atheist people[/i] do things. What have atheists done for children? Contributed "common sense"? Ha. Common sense existed long before atheism, and exists in many places outside of atheism. Want to try again?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 03:16 AM

That's funny. It's a mere absence, so it can't contribute anything, but it can contribute common sense.

The idea that atheism is a mere absence of belief is contradicted by almost everything every atheist has ever posted on the World Wide Web. That may be the etymology of the word. It's not what atheism is really like now.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Jul 10 - 12:43 AM

A mere absence of belief or faith cannot be expected to 'contribute' anything except perhaps common sense.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 11:55 PM

What has atheism contributed to children?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 10:26 PM

In any event, getting back to the topic, what's wrong with the observation that music was the only contribution religion ever made to children. At least it contributed something.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 05:28 PM

All humans die sooner or later. About the only generalisation about us that is worth trusting.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 02:57 PM

The problem is with that word "all" - Human beings are individuals, and the word "all" applies to them only rarely.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 09:07 AM

The Jericho video could have been faked, according to IDF.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 08:58 AM

"Should we conclude that atheists are all mass murderers?"

       After the Battle of Jericho, Joshua murdered all of the Canaanites. Should we conclude that all Jews are mass murderers?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 07:37 AM

I don't think Hitler went to church much either.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 07:33 AM

A quick reminder that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all Atheist.

Should we conclude that atheists are all mass murderers?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jul 10 - 07:11 AM

It seems to me that music is the only good thing that children get out of religion.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 07:11 PM

And--allow me to refute Roger Barrett, the letter writer, by stating the obvious:

Preaching social and economic justice IS preaching the Gospel!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 07:02 PM

Exactly, Joe!

I'm sorry to hear of the demise of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church. And the "curse" on it, i.e., that it strove to work for social and economic justice, is just plain bizarre in relation to what I consider to be the very core of Christianity. I've posted this a number of times before, but it bears repeating as many times as it takes for the message to get through:

Matthew 25:35-41 (New American Standard Bible)

"'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?

'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these my brothers, even to the least of them, you did it to Me.'

This message has been out there for the better part of two millennia, and there are still a lot of people—a lot of self-styled "Christians"—who still haven't gotten it!

And for those folks, and for Glenn Beck and his ilk, in the following verse, Jesus added:

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.'" [For you did none of these things.]

The church I attend (Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity) is one of those that strongly advocates, and works for, social and economic justice, and on numerous occasions, have laid it on the line—to the extend that one of our retired pastors has "done time" because of his dedication to peace and social justice—with the support, backing, and active support of the congregation.

Interesting to note, Joe (and something I find quite hopeful, in spite of the Glenn Beck's of the world), is that when Central Lutheran became a socially active church, the congregation expanded from a small, neighborhood church attended by a handful of elderly folks, to a vibrant and active church with a congregation that still includes many elderly, but has been swelled greatly by young people, including young married couples with children. Almost tripled in size and is still on its way up!

This, it seems, is what a lot of these younger folks were (and are) looking for.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 05:55 PM

To give you and idea of the different concepts of religion that exist, I'd like to post a Letter to the Editor that appeared in today's Sacramento Bee newspaper:

'Social Agenda" hurt church
Re: "Church Closes Doors Over Debts" (July 3): the Bee article on the sad demise of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church fails to mention the root cause of this collapse. Churches like Gloria Dei that commit themselves to advancing trendy social agendas are withering away. Those that busy themselves preaching the Gospel are thriving. If St. Paul had spent his time condemning first century social injustice, there would be no church.
Gloria Dei is not the end of this matter. There will certainly be more to come. If you want some really nice candlesticks, wait for the auction at Trinity (Episcopal) Cathedral.
-Roger Barrett, Auburn, California-

I live just outside Auburn. It's the county seat of the most conservative county in California, and I often have to be careful what I say when I'm in Auburn.
Thirty years ago, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in Sacramento had a thousand members. Now it has 90, and a debt of $800,000; so the church decided to disband. The Lutheran Church has been bery active in helping the poor and homeless in Sacramento, and I'm sure Gloria Dei was also involved in that sort of work.

Barrett's letter echoes the attitude expressed by radio/TV talk show host Glenn Beck:

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
Beck contends that social justice is a "code word" for communism and Nazism.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, an evangelical leader who is the CEO and president of Sojourners, a Christian networking group in Washington, D.C., has been one of the loudest voices against Beck:

"When Glenn Beck is asking Christians to leave their churches, the Catholic Church, the black churches, Hispanic, evangelical, to leave all our churches, I'm saying it's time for Christians to leave the Glenn Beck show," he said. "This offends Christians. This is salt, something at the heart of their faith. It's something many of us have spent our lives trying to do, to practice.
"Yesterday, he (Beck) went further and he said social justice is a perversion of the gospel. ... I'm saying it's at the heart of the gospel."

Despite what Glenn Beck and letter writer Barrett have to say, I think that involvement is "social justice" issues is a good indicator of whether a religious congregation is healthy. If a religious group shows disdain for the poor and homeless and the immigrant, stay clear of it. The view of Beck and Barrett is very popular among "religious" people, and it gives the rest of us believers a bad name.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 01:44 PM

Steamin' Willie, the simple fact that you--and a lot of people--seem to be missing, is that it is not religion that is trying to interfere with your life, it is certain religious people.

I do go to a church of my own choosing (with some irregularity), one that is open and considered "too liberal" by many other churches (no, not Unitarian), and I'm more of a questioner than a believer. I listen to the sermons and discuss things with people, but I chose to find my own way and make my own decisions.

But when the Jehovah's Witlesses come to my door to try to save my soul with their particular brand of religion and sell me copies of The Watchtower, I simple say, "Sorry, not interested," close the door, and go back to what I was doing before the doorbell rang.

But I don't blame "religion" for the interruption.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 06:38 AM

Yeah, takes a lot of words to explain. Snag is, there aren't enough words in any language because as an abstraction, it means different things to different people. if it was clear cut, it couldn't be used to control people.

And that is my main beef. Not that I reckon we could live without it, (if we didn't have religion, some idiot would invent it...) but that many who put forward their belief sometimes, no, many times, demand that it is more than tolerated, but that others should at best share it and at least give it credence.

Sorry, that is like asking me to respect Sheffield United. Sheffield Wednesday is my religion (or the nearest thing to it) and whilst I accept that Sheff Utd exist, that they (try) to play a similar game and are looking for the same ultimate goal (literally) I reckon if Doncaster Rovers are added to this debate, there you have Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Like I stated in this and other threads, until religion stops trying to interfere with my life, I will question it. That is not to say i will disrespect people's beliefs, just their weird belief that they can throw it in my face and the faces of politicians. Here in The UK, men with weird hats are allowed to scrutinise legislation in our upper house, (House of Lords.) For no other reason than the silly hat as far as I can see. there are more people respect The Rolling Stones than respect Christianity in The UK, but I don't see Mick & Keef wearing the ermine.

I know that at certain times, especially on a Friday, some of my colleagues cannot be contacted on their home work line. This is because they are bowing towards Mecca. Tough on them that Sunday not Friday is the traditional day of rest in The UK, but I have no problems with that at all. I am not exactly working when typing this. So what. However, we needed to do something on a Sunday a few months ago and four of my "Christian" colleagues refused to work as it was (as emailed to me) the Lord's day, not Steamin' Willie's. I dug out a letter signed by all four last year "reporting" our muslim colleagues for going down the mosque when they should be working.

Funny old world.

I haven't done anything about wither stance because to do so would mean deciding which is the true faith and as it is neither, I am not qualified to make that choice. Interestingly, my Muslim colleagues seem far more tolerant of my practicing Christian colleagues than the other way around. I showed them the letter in a fit of disgust and they laughed at it. Well done them. Mind you, I also know i am spoken about in less than reverent tones by them when they know they can't get any sense out of me on a Friday after mid afternoon as I am down the pub. (Couldn't help mentioning the pork scratchings I have with my pint when one brave fool tackled me about it.)

I reckon I am going to start a new religion. Hey Joe! You live in California and Douglas Adams always said that is the best place to start a new religion. Howsabout I send you a draft of my scriptures. Your fault for being so ruddy reasonable and fair minded when all everybody else wants to do is wind each other up!

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jul 10 - 12:41 AM

Well said, Joe.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 09:30 PM

Too often, people seem to assume that there is only one answer to any given question. Taking the first message in this thread, it IS true that for perhaps ten percent of Muslim children in the UK, their parents may have a problem allowing their children to have music education in school.
That is true - but there are a number of other truths that apply to the other ninety percent of Muslim children in the UK, and still other truths that apply in other places in the world. The problem the original message describes is not an either-or situation. It covers a wide spectrum, as does almost any situation that occurs in a religious context.

It IS absolutely true that child abuse and molestation occurred with horrible frequency in many parishes in the Catholic Church, and a large number of Catholic bishops made an equally distressing attempt to cover up those crimes. But it is also true that in a far larger number of parishes, absolutely no abuse or molestation occurred. For those who did not know the criminals or the victims, the crimes are distant and unreal - but in places like Boston and Ireland where these crimes were particularly widespread, entire dioceses were poisoned by the priests and bishops who betrayed parishioners and their children with these horrible crimes. And WHY did these crimes of molestation and abuse and coverup occur? - there is no one answer.
But in the parishes and Catholic institutions I have been affiliated with, these things did not happen, and I had a very good experience of church - and that is also truth, a truth with the equal truth that the Catholic Church has served as a haven for child molesters.

And it's absolutely true that churches have served as very effective ways of control and oppression and bigotry and other tyrannies and atrocities. But conflicting with that truth is the truth that churches have served as centers of compassion and education and heroism and refuge.

There is no one, absolute truth about religious faith. It can be profoundly wise or mindlessly bigoted. It can be amazingly compassionate, or horribly oppressive and cruel. It can be a pinnacle of goodness and love, or a bottomless pit of hatred and evil. It can open minds to limitless possibilities, or betray intelligence with ironclad doctrinalism. Sometimes, religious denominations will have some consistency ands lean one way or another, toward "good" or "bad" - but oftentimes, these contradictions coexist in equal strength within one denomination, and even within one local religious community.

So, if you make either a broad condemnation or a broad commendation of religion as a whole, or even of a particular denomination - you're probably wrong. Religion is far too complex to be explained away in twenty-five words or less. Yup - even worse than defining what is folk....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:44 PM

Three examples? Mine, the ideal one, and the really barmy one that's probably best avoided.
Definition could be a little trickier..

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:26 PM

Oh crap, 'what is folk' to the power of infinity.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:25 PM

Define "universe" and give three examples. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:22 PM

Or do we live in a hybrid universe?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 08:00 PM

Is the universe traditional?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 07:24 PM

I love Mudcat, but I'm not sure that it is a good forum for discussing the origin of the Universe.

That's a wonderful sentence. And probably true (though that's not what makes it a wonderful sentence) - not that it mightn't be an interesting discussion, but there'd be bound to be people who would it as an occasion to get really excited and angry and unpleasant. Shame.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 12:14 PM

Religion is real in the sense that it has tangible effects on the world; good, bad or indifferent.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 12:10 PM

never thought about it like that.

Religion is of course an abstraction but music is too, but in a glorious way....

Neither can be abstractions though when they are used as a vehicle for change. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Clerical law post revolution.... all huge social and civilisation altering events in the name of religion. Music? Well, Woody Guthrie had "this machine kills fascists" etched on the side of his guitar. Far more poignantly, Pete Townsend said of his guitar, "I don't love it, I don't polish it after every performance, I play the fucking thing."

Quite.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 11:42 AM

Back to the original question: no, religion does not "deny music to children" because religion is an abstraction. Religion does not 'do' anything, though a great many people are influenced by religious beliefs in their personal and public lives. Certainly, some religious folks deny music to their children (and perhaps would deny it to others if they could get away with it) but many other religionists embrace music, both in sacred and secular forms. I suspect that the original poster understands this distinction.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 11:06 AM

"American protestant fundamentalism is rooted in the Second Great Awakening, back in a previous century"

Okay; that's the root from which the system of beliefs bacame prevalent in America to the degree that it is; the publications from Los Angeles included a wide group of authors from all over the country; it wasn't a matter of a belief system "based in Los Angeles". That was just the point from which strict Biblical believers started labeling themselves as "fundamentalists". No doubt but what many believers have, defacto, believed in the inerrancy of Scripture from the time the writtings of the Bible were collected. But as "modernist" theolgy appeared, conservatives felt more need to formulate explicit defense of Biblical inerrancy.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: GUEST,Steamin; Willie
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 10:23 AM

Joe, that pint will have to wait a while. I was in California about two years ago, but found that your wine was better than your beer, so unless we can drink pints of pinot without my wife noticing and berating me.......

Interestingly, I too don't consider myself an atheist but that is for one simple reason. Atheism as I understand its literal description would mean there is nothing other than what we can experience. If that were the case, the answer is actually chaos. Chaos doesn't work because of one simple fact; f=ma.

The laws of physics work, all the time. Sure, they need refining from time to time and whilst we can get our head around Newtonian physics because we can measure it, we are still struggling a bit with quantum mechanics. Time will improve our understanding.

Now... my issue with organised religion is the problem of my last sentence. Nobody updates scriptures in the light of further understanding. People 2,000+ years ago wrote what they wrote as being the science of the day. It explained what we experienced and gave solutions to those things we don't understand. Sprinkle a bit of mind control for good measure and there you have it. Religion in a bun with fries.

But, like the fast food merchants themselves, changing or veering from the recipe is fraught with problems. So instead it is easier to tell people they actually like the gherkin rather than change it for tomato. If big macs aren't popular any more, have an advertising campaign rather than accept people have moved on from big macs. Awful analogy I know, but I am making it up whilst typing and I am not the shiniest trumpet in the band.

I reckon my analogy works though. Easier to convince people of what you want to give them rather than make what you give them relevant. Science, luckily, cannot work like that. Einstein may be revered but some of what he put forward has been discredited. Not because he was wrong but because we now have more information with which to refine. Newton wrote of absolute distance, absolute time and absolute motion. Einstein wasn't initially famous for what he put forward with relativity, but his fame was that he blew classical physics apart and a fundamental precept of the Principia with it... Now, how many times a week do theologians edit the supernatural sections of scriptures?

We are left with wonderful stories, in the King James version wonderfully written too. But to say the "science" explanations contained in biblical stories are physically true is to leave the room as far as any discussion is concerned. That's my problem with some of our correspondents. I defend to the death your right to think that scriptures are true, but under no circumstances (other than JC himself popping up again?) will I take such a view seriously. I don't have to respect your view, just your right to have your view, (whoever you are.) Sadly, pandering to superstitious waffle holds back both society and science and perhaps that is inexcusable. Pushing your views on your children may or not be wrong. After all, my parents were methodists and I live in the home town of Wesley, (you should see the coaches full of american tourists each and every day near us...) but I am what I sometimes call rational and sometimes call indifferent. Luckily, kids can grow up untainted by their upbringing. And let's all thank God for that!

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 05:41 AM

Bringing this thread back closer to where it started,surely a more important conflict between the state and parents over the well being of a child is medical treatment. For instance, The Jehovah's Witnesses do not permit blood transfusion and the Christian Scientists see prayer as more powerful than medicine.

I have heard that there have been cases where doctors have applied to the courts to override the wishes of parents.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 12:51 AM

"American protestant fundamentalism is historically based in a series of volumes published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles from 1910 to 1915."

Bullpucky. American protestant fundamentalism is rooted in the Second Great Awakening, back in a previous century, and certainly NOT based in Los Angeles, California, for fuck's sake. See The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch, for starters.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 12:47 AM

Kent, I just can't be bothered - you win.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 12:45 AM

Well, I'm worried about threads turning ugly. Much better to have civil discussion, rather than heated combat. I hate it when people start screaming at each other.
Peace, y'all.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 07 Jul 10 - 12:30 AM

Ebbie,

Definitely not in this thread.

I mentioned the creationism controversy because I think there are some interesting parallels with the music curriculum controversy, not to convince people that creationism is true. I love Mudcat, but I'm not sure that it is a good forum for discussing the origin of the Universe. I will give your idea a great deal of thought and, if I can figure out a clear and concise way to say what I would need to say, I will start a new thread. But not tonight, and not tomorrow either.

I'm not worried about the thread turning ugly. Ugly doesn't bother me much. But if we're going to talk about this issue, I'll need to be prepared because, on this issue, in this forum, I am apparently a minority of one. There won't be anyone to pick up my slack if I express things poorly.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 11:53 PM

Perhaps not in this thread, Kent Davis, but I would love to hear your reasons for believing in the 'young earth' theory. It is possible, of course, that the thread would turn ugly - but in that case, it could be shut down. Would you be interested in starting a new thread on the subject?

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 11:17 PM

frogprince,

You "can't really see why a 'young earth creationist' would attempt to distance himself from fundamentalism". Neither can I.

I agree with those aspects of fundamentalism which I mentioned, those which fundamentalism has in common with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, those which are found in the Nicene Creed and in the New Testament. I also agree that the Bible is inerrant. I used to be a fundamentalist. I am not trying to distance myself from Protestant fundamentalism. However, since I am no longer a Protestant, obviously I am no longer a Protestant fundamentalist. My disagreement with Protestant fundamentalism stems not from the fact that it is fundamentalist, but from the fact that it is Protestant.

I didn't bring this up thinking that I was going to convince you, or anyone, that the Bible is inerrant. I brought it up because, it appears to me, that some folks use the word "fundamentalist" without really understanding what it means. I hope I have shed a little light on that subject.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 10:54 PM

Smokey,

I appreciate your concern for my children. You ask if they are free to choose. Since I attended public school from 1st grade though medical school, and since my mother (a biology teacher for 36 years, with a Master's degree) was not, in my early childhood, a young earth creationist, and since I (and my parents) have since adopted that view, it would appear that schooling is not destiny.   

You hope my children have been blessed "with sufficient intelligence" to choose, and accuse me of making "efforts to the contrary". You thus claim that YOU are more concerned about my children's intellectual development than I am. That raises several questions:

1) Do you really believe you have sufficient evidence to make such a claim?
2) If I were teaching my children an ancient earth theory, such as the one to which you apparently subscribe, would you accuse me of trying to prevent my children from choosing young earth creationism?
3) If so, is it acceptable to you that public schools actually do try to prevent children from choosing young earth creationism by presenting only one side of the argument?
4) Do you hold that the majority should be able to force their views on the children of the minority?
5) If so, do you believe the same should hold true in those areas of the U.S. in which Creationists are a majority?

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 10:15 PM

Steamin' Willie,

You perhaps noticed that I neither attempted to persuade you that young earth creationism is true nor made snide remarks about ancient earth theories. I brought up the subject as an example of a potential conflict between individual conscience and the state, a conflict which has been resolved through liberty.

I am not sure where you got the idea that I think "dinosaurs were put there by ...God just to test our faith". I don't think that, and have never met anyone who does think that.

I will be sure to let my children know of your pity for them. You will be relieved to know that they are at least as well informed about evolutionary theory as the typical public school student. Science certainly does open one's mind to how the world works. I agree that, by making science one's study, one can do something useful with one's life, like make the world a better place. You really don't need to apologize for not being a psychiatrist. I am not one either. Although my practice is currently limited to psychiatry (because I work for a non-profit mental health agency), my board certification is actually in family practice.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Kent Davis
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 09:41 PM

Howard Jones,

Perhaps you are right that no one has equated those Muslims who want to withdraw their children from music lessons with fundamentalists. However, take a look at the posts of Tootler (July 2, 4:06 p.m.) and Don(Wyziwyg)T (July 2, 5:37) and tell me what you think. Perhaps I misread them.

You said that I talked about liberty, but that the examples I gave were not really "liberty". Perhaps another term would be more appropriate than "liberty" but, unfortuanately I can't think of one at the moment. Anyway, it seems to me that, in general, the more liberty a people have, the fewer the conflicts between individual conscience and the law.

We are not particularly plagued with Aztecs wishing to offer human sacrifice but, should any come around seeking an exemption from the murder laws, the exemption should be denied.   The state must 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.") However, it is relatively rare that an individual's conscience REQUIRES him to violate THOSE ancient laws. It is the NEW laws, the laws requiring EVERYONE to do what the majority thinks is best, with which minorities tend to have conflict.

I am glad to hear that the National Curriculum does not apply to independent schools and to homeschooling.

Kent

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 07:20 PM

Well, Willie, as I said, I'm a fairly strict Darwinist Catholic. I think that God is somehow in the essence of creation - or perhaps is the essence of creation - and that creation took place through the wonderful, miraculous, natural process of evolution.
I don't see the biblical creation story as historic, scientific, or anthropological truth. Nonetheless, I love the story and see profound truth in the story on many levels.

Intelligent design? Well, maybe....but I certainly wouldn't insist on that. But I'm with Don Firth on this one.

"And God saw that it was good." I wish we all could see the goodness that surrounds us, whether or not we attribute it to a god.

We need to have that pint....or three.

-Joe-

---

Addendum. This thread hasn't talked about music for a number of days, so I think it's time to move it down to the non-music section.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 05:11 PM

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: glueman
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:54 PM

In the UK I assume folk fans to be above-averagly educated, liberal rationalists until they prove otherwise. As a card carrying relativist this can prove problematic in forging musical relationships, as most definitions of the material don't lend themselves to equivocation, let alone contradiction.

There's also a strand of folk music that aggregates religion around itself, and not just happy-clappy evangelism but mainstream churches which use the term 'folk club' as a blanket acoustic entre to the religious world via the church hall. Michael Powell the director once said something about art being the equal of religion, at least in enthusiasm. It's hard not to see a folk pantheon that mimics a religious one but, like pointing out the faith required of an atheistic position, more adherents will point out the differences than accept the similarities.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:47 PM

"I emphatically deny that Protestant fundamentalists go back to the fundamentals of CHRISTIANITY. That is the very reason I left fundamentalism and Protestantism."

American protestant fundamentalism is historically based in a series of volumes published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles from 1910 to 1915. The intention of the whole project was not to introduce anything new, but to solidify the church's basis in the fundamentals of Christianity itself in the face of the challenges of theological "modernism". If you read thru the chapter titles of the series, almost everything amounts to an expansion of the points Kent has cited from the Nicene Creed. The one subject area that keeps appearing in the Fundamentals series that Kent didn't touch on is the fundamentalist affirmation of the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible. I would submit that the doctrine of verbal inspiration, with it's implications of inerrancy and infallibity, is actually the backbone of historic American fundamentalism. All of the other doctrine is "proved" by "innerant" scripture.

There are avowed fundamentalists who are willing to say that the "innerancy" of the Bible does not preclude the presence of "innerant" spiritual lessons in the form of non-literal narratives; in my experience they have been the exception; fundamentalists I have known have generally insisted on the literal historical accuracy of the Bible. I have seen no indication that any "young earth creationism" is actually based on anything except the desire to defend that historical accuracy. The "scientific" conclusion is a given; the "evidence" to support it is sought and interpreted as necessary. I can't really see why a "young earth creationist" would attempt to distance himself from fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:25 PM

I don't actively believe in any of them, though on odd occasions I believe in all of them, but never anything in-between.

Good post, Don F.

Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 03:02 PM

Don Firth's commments remind me that the God most athiests actively disbelieve in is a very specific, culture-bound conception of God/Gawd/Goddess/god.