klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
rjquillin wrote:Rather seems like this minimum wage escalation is doing little but decreasing the number of jobs for entry level labor; essentially high school age workers.
A "minimum wage" is not and never was intended to be a "living wage", until now it seems.

My first job was at minimum wage, and I remember my first raise, when shortly after I got my job the rate was increased. From $1.25 to $1.35/hr.
Yup, high school and living at home. It's what minimum wage was all about.



Agreed that minimum wage was originally not intended to be a living wage. But that was when minimum wage jobs were the things that high school students did to earn some extra spending money. "Real jobs" all paid significantly more than that, so that you could live. Or at least could live working two jobs. Problem now is a lack of middle-skilled jobs, like manufacturing, that used to drive the wage structure higher. We're left with a boatload of openings for highly skilled programmers/CS people and lots of low/mid skill workers who need some income. Any income. So they end up in fast food. It'd be nice to just say "if you work in fast food you're not looking hard enough", but I'm not convinced there are jobs to be had for many people. Quite the pickle we're in.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin

A quote from Chem's link:
Melissa Autilio Fleischut, the chief executive of the New York State Restaurant Association, which supports the industry, including fast-food establishments, said that fast food was “an opportunity industry” where young workers could learn skills and advance. If the minimum wage were indeed raised to $15, Ms. Fleischut, said the result would be more automation, fewer workers hired and increased costs at the counter. “McDonald’s dollar meal would be $1.25,” she said.
And add to this the increase in regulation adding to costs and driving businesses to close, and we have even fewer entry-level "minimum" wage jobs, as well as a decreasing number of semi-skilled and skilled jobs, like the one Eduardo Shoy lost.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:I think it's disingenuous to call it a "minimum" wage. This makes it sound like this is "minimum" it takes to live on as opposed to this is the "minimum" an employer is required to pay. Not sure what else you'd call it though. Regardless, some jobs are just not worth 30k a year to start and your typical Fast Food lifer isn't worth it (sorry, that's not PC!).



I don't disagree, I was just lamenting the fact that there just don't seem to be enough decent jobs available. Once you're unemployed for a year or two, nobody wants to hire you (I'm seeing that in my own family right now), and I imagine for an older worker it's even harder. I wish we had a solution for that problem, instead of trying to convert fast food into a decent job (which I suppose it will never be).

Edit: What Klez and RJ said, agree. Missed those comments.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:I don't disagree, I was just lamenting the fact that there just don't seem to be enough decent jobs available. Once you're unemployed for a year or two, nobody wants to hire you (I'm seeing that in my own family right now), and I imagine for an older worker it's even harder. I wish we had a solution for that problem, instead of trying to convert fast food into a decent job (which I suppose it will never be).

Edit: What Klez and RJ said, agree. Missed those comments.



Yeah, fast food is not a decent job. It's already at the point where I can get a sit down meal for the same price (cheaper if I skip a drink [pop, not alcohol]). Yes you have to add the tip in, but I'd rather pay a buck or two extra for the higher quality. I almost never go to Fast Food places anymore because the costs are too high. Six bucks for a whopper combo? Hell.no

Anyway, the point is, you force them to pay more all you've done is drive up food costs for the consumer and that's the driving factor for these places. Cheap food fast. I think we've already reached the breaking point for "cheap" and all we're left with is fast. I'd rather go to a fast casual (Applebee's [ate there for the first time in six years a couple weeks ago. Probably be six more before I go back]. I think they even have a lunch guarantee.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

edlada


quality posts: 3 Private Messages edlada
rjquillin wrote:A quote from Chem's link:
Melissa Autilio Fleischut, the chief executive of the New York State Restaurant Association, which supports the industry, including fast-food establishments, said that fast food was “an opportunity industry” where young workers could learn skills and advance. If the minimum wage were indeed raised to $15, Ms. Fleischut, said the result would be more automation, fewer workers hired and increased costs at the counter. “McDonald’s dollar meal would be $1.25,” she said.
And add to this the increase in regulation adding to costs and driving businesses to close, and we have even fewer entry-level "minimum" wage jobs, as well as a decreasing number of semi-skilled and skilled jobs, like the one Eduardo Shoy lost.



I must have missed the part in the constitution that guarantees the right to a McDonald's dollar menu. I also don't believe the spokesperson for an industry organization funded by the owners of said industry is going to give an objective opinion on the subject. Those two bogeymen of the conservative business agenda, "increasing the minimum wage" and "increased regulation" feature large in the quote from the article. The fact is neither the minimum wage or much regulation existed until they were absolutely necessary. It doesn't matter what the minimum wage law was intended to do originally , the facts of todays economy are that many workers employed in minimum wage jobs are the sole breadwinners in their family because there are no other jobs available. If industry as a whole wants to see a huge resurgence in union organization then just keep the status quo, which is to outsource jobs, and continually cut pay and benefits and see what happens.

My dogs like me, that is important.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
edlada wrote:I must have missed the part in the constitution that guarantees the right to a McDonald's dollar menu. I also don't believe the spokesperson for an industry organization funded by the owners of said industry is going to give an objective opinion on the subject. Those two bogeymen of the conservative business agenda, "increasing the minimum wage" and "increased regulation" feature large in the quote from the article. The fact is neither the minimum wage or much regulation existed until they were absolutely necessary. It doesn't matter what the minimum wage law was intended to do originally , the facts of todays economy are that many workers employed in minimum wage jobs are the sole breadwinners in their family because there are no other jobs available. If industry as a whole wants to see a huge resurgence in union organization then just keep the status quo, which is to outsource jobs, and continually cut pay and benefits and see what happens.



The problem is some jobs aren't worth more than minimum wage no matter how badly the people who work them want them to be. If minimum wage jacked the price of a dollar menu item to 1.25 that's honestly enough of an increase that I wouldn't get it. Anymore, if I go to fast food places I ALWAYS order off the dollar menu because I think that's about all the food is worth. Make me pay more for it and I just won't go there, which means a loss of revenue, which if scaled out means steep declines in profit (remember, the reason for dollar menus in the first place was to drive people back to fast food), which means less demand for workers. You could very well end up with 10 employees making $30k when before you had 30 employees making minimum. What do the extra 20 do?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

edlada


quality posts: 3 Private Messages edlada
bhodilee wrote:The problem is some jobs aren't worth more than minimum wage no matter how badly the people who work them want them to be. If minimum wage jacked the price of a dollar menu item to 1.25 that's honestly enough of an increase that I wouldn't get it. Anymore, if I go to fast food places I ALWAYS order off the dollar menu because I think that's about all the food is worth. Make me pay more for it and I just won't go there, which means a loss of revenue, which if scaled out means steep declines in profit (remember, the reason for dollar menus in the first place was to drive people back to fast food), which means less demand for workers. You could very well end up with 10 employees making $30k when before you had 30 employees making minimum. What do the extra 20 do?



I see your point and it doesn't matter. As you said earlier you prefer Applebee's and such places. If a lot of people stop eating fast food they will do like you and there will be new employment opportunities at those restaurants. There are also enough people that love their Mac's, et al so much they will suck up the extra cost. It's not like Americans are going to start cooking at home all of the time.

My dogs like me, that is important.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
edlada wrote:I see your point and it doesn't matter. As you said earlier you prefer Applebee's and such places. If a lot of people stop eating fast food they will do like you and there will be new employment opportunities at those restaurants. There are also enough people that love their Mac's, et al so much they will suck up the extra cost. It's not like Americans are going to start cooking at home all of the time.



You have a point. I would think an Applebee's kitchen pays more to start anyway. Though, to make clear, prefer, in this case, does not mean enjoy (I essentially hate chain restaurants and try very hard to not go to them).

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rjquillin


quality posts: 170 Private Messages rjquillin
edlada wrote:I must have missed the part in the constitution that guarantees the right to a McDonald's dollar menu.

Not sure I can find much constitutional justification for any number of recent congressional actions, much less the regulations written by agencies they have created, however;
Some minimum wage history on enactment and amendments along with some recent testimony and statistics, and an interesting opinion regarding race.
Just not much sympathy for those that believe minimum=living.

CT

edlada


quality posts: 3 Private Messages edlada
bhodilee wrote:You have a point. I would think an Applebee's kitchen pays more to start anyway. Though, to make clear, prefer, in this case, does not mean enjoy (I essentially hate chain restaurants and try very hard to not go to them).



But, but, I thought you loved going to P.F. Chang's ?????

My dogs like me, that is important.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Looks likes I opened a can of worms, which wasn't my intention. Glad it happened, though. I have lots of opinions, but most are probably offensive or come off as highbrow. For now, I'll learn from the rest of you, I think.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
edlada wrote:But, but, I thought you loved going to P.F. Chang's ?????



:ANGRY FIST:

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
edlada wrote:I must have missed the part in the constitution that guarantees the right to a McDonald's dollar menu.



Nothing in the Constitution demands it, and nothing in the Constitution forbids it. But customers demand it, and herein lies at least part of the problem.

We have a classic example of the "prisoners dilemma" being played out in this country. A prisoners dilemma is a situation in which the rational, benefit-maximizing actions of individuals result in a solution (or an equilibrium) which is sub-optimal: a different set of actions would actually be to everyone's benefit. The problem is enforcement - if everyone agreed to the alternative actions, then any individual would have the incentive to cheat and revert back to their previous action. That way, that individual is better off as long as everyone else sticks to the alternative action. Of course, if enough people realize this the entire system breaks down and everyone goes back to their sub-optimal ways.

The economic literature has long agreed that there is only one way out of this situation - enforceable collective action. If cheating can be sufficiently punished or optimal action compelled, everyone can be made better off. But that smells suspiciously like governmental regulation, which much of our population believe is always damaging to the economy and the well-being of the individuals within it. It isn't.

Which brings us to:

edlada wrote:Those two bogeymen of the conservative business agenda, "increasing the minimum wage" and "increased regulation" feature large in the quote from the article.



I need to find the studies, but there have been recently published some rigorous studies that show that regulation and minimum wage increases (of the types that have been instituted in local areas, and thus can be studied - obviously not any regulation or wage increase) do not bring the economic damage feared, and often bring net economic benefits. Thus, economic regulations and minimum wage laws may be valid examples of collective action to alleviate prisoner dilemma situations.

edlada wrote:It doesn't matter what the minimum wage law was intended to do originally , the facts of todays economy are that many workers employed in minimum wage jobs are the sole breadwinners in their family because there are no other jobs available. If industry as a whole wants to see a huge resurgence in union organization then just keep the status quo, which is to outsource jobs, and continually cut pay and benefits and see what happens.



Let's add another piece to the puzzle: in addition to cutting wages and benefits, also pass laws that remove the government programs that just barely keep many of these workers adequately fed and housed. Union organization will just be the start of it.

It seems to me that our national economy shifted in the economic crisis of 2008/2009 to a new equilibrium, which is both stable and very much sub-optimal. Getting to a better equilibrium is very difficult, and attempts to move in that direction are often stymied out of fears that (A) profits/GDP might suffer, or (B) they'll be self-defeating because China (or whoever) will take advantage of our actions and enrich themselves at our expense. Thus, we become powerless to help ourselves and resort to convincing ourselves that we're really fine, when it is obvious that we aren't.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

Sigh. For any extended period of time you cannot pay people less than it costs to live (Go read Malthus).

There is a huge problem that many industries (fast food and large retailers in particular) hire adults and pay them sub Malthusian wage rates because We The People get stuck with the bill.

It is FAR less distortionairy to the market to make "Fast Food" costs be born by the purchasers of "Fast Food" than the current system where you get your $1.25 hamburger for $1 and don't see (or aren't one of the ones paying for) the $0.25 which is indirectly paid for by the royal we.

This is even more true for the Walmart's of the world.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

Great article I just found while looking for some details.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
mother wrote:Sigh. For any extended period of time you cannot pay people less than it costs to live (Go read Malthus).

There is a huge problem that many industries (fast food and large retailers in particular) hire adults and pay them sub Malthusian wage rates because We The People get stuck with the bill.

It is FAR less distortionairy to the market to make "Fast Food" costs be born by the purchasers of "Fast Food" than the current system where you get your $1.25 hamburger for $1 and don't see (or aren't one of the ones paying for) the $0.25 which is indirectly paid for by the royal we.

This is even more true for the Walmart's of the world.



This is a decent point. Are we happy with this system? We get to sit here and smugly say that they're not "worth" a decent wage, but we're actually paying.

It's weird, saying they don't deserve to be paid X amount because they're unskilled and we want them to damn well know it, but we'll subsidize that wage via gov't programs.

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD

So what about the mom and pop business that is just nearly surviving and now you increase the minimum wage to say $15/hr.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
ERMD wrote:So what about the mom and pop business that is just nearly surviving and now you increase the minimum wage to say $15/hr.



This was my question, as well. However, market theory would, I think, dictate that if that business can't afford that employee, then they shouldn't have him/her. Or, in order to afford that employee, they would increase prices accordingly.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
ERMD wrote:So what about the mom and pop business that is just nearly surviving and now you increase the minimum wage to say $15/hr.




1)I don't think proprietors are forced to pay themselves wages.

2) feast THEM. I'm tired of having people reach into my wallet to pay their workers. THAT IS ALL THEY ARE DOING IF THEY PAY A NON-LIVING WAGE.

3) They don't exist, Walmart, McDonalds, Lowe's, and Home Depot put them out of business 15 years ago. Living minimum wages would make whole categories of small businesses possible again.

Minimum wage in this country is such a back-asswards political debate. Mandating a living wage is the socially and fiscally conservative solution. The left wing solutions range from socialism to communism.

Edit: Sorry for yelling ;)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

This is why I'm glad I didn't say anything and listened instead. I'm a free market believer. I also hate handouts, welfare, and everything else that screams liberal BS. Admission: forcing a person to pay a certain wage, if they decide to pay one in the first place, isn't the ideal free market situation. I'm ok with that if that small infringement allows the rest of the free market to function better, like not subsidizing those active within the market with govt money. My original opinion has been changed.

The big question: what's a "livable wage" and how should it be determined?

NB: I think one of the issues with this whole problem is the way it's packaged. People pitch the current min. wage as a moral problem. It may or may not be. I don't care about govt morals (because I'm a real conservative). I do care about fiscal issues and this is a fiscal issue, not a moral one.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
mother wrote:1)I don't think proprietors are forced to pay themselves wages.

2) feast THEM. I'm tired of having people reach into my wallet to pay their workers. THAT IS ALL THEY ARE DOING IF THEY PAY A NON-LIVING WAGE.

3) They don't exist, Walmart, McDonalds, Lowe's, and Home Depot put them out of business 15 years ago. Living minimum wages would make whole categories of small businesses possible again.

Minimum wage in this country is such a back-asswards political debate. Mandating a living wage is the socially and fiscally conservative solution. The left wing solutions range from socialism to communism.

Edit: Sorry for yelling ;)



Of course, the hypothetical 'you' is paying for it either way.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
jawlz wrote:Of course, the hypothetical 'you' is paying for it either way.



But it's being paid as a service I'm provided or a product I'm given and the person receiving the pay is working for it instead of the opposite. Also, in the long scheme, yes, but I don't eat at McDonalds or shop at Walmart so an incrininetal increase in their costs don't affect me at all.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:But it's being paid as a service I'm provided or a product I'm given and the person receiving the pay is working for it instead of the opposite. Also, in the long scheme, yes, but I don't eat at McDonalds or shop at Walmart so an incrininetal increase in their costs don't affect me at all.



I like this. It's an important distinction. I seem to recall Romney or some other R candidate talking about the "dignity of work." It's more dignified when you get paid for what you are doing, instead of sort of getting paid and still having to take a handout.

And what about the dignity of paying for things/services you actually want and actually receive?

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
jawlz wrote:Of course, the hypothetical 'you' is paying for it either way.



The hypothetical 'we' at least.

Unless it's suddenly become in fashion to let people (read:children) die of exposure/starvation again, in which case Malthuses solution kicks in and the labor supply dries up and employers are forced to raise their wages...

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
mother wrote:Great article I just found while looking for some details.



That makes me angry.
Follow-on discussion I entirely agree with.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Sparky brought this up on facebook. I wondered what you guys thought.

School choir performing Christmas music in church.

My first thought was this should be a non-issue. This is what choirs do. It's supposed to be voluntary. The article makes it sound like atheists are complaining just to be grumpy elfs, but I suspect someone from the school district complained and that's how the ACLU and FFRF got involved in the first place.

If you're not a Christian, at what point does it become a problem if your kid has to sing religious songs for choir at public school? That's not exactly the issue here, but it's what I'm thinking about. It's "voluntary," but opting out will draw negative attention to the kid. I read (now I have lost the link) that the ACLU dropped their objection for the one school whose choir was extracurricular. Apparently the other choirs are not extracurricular.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I always wonder how it would be if the school wanted to sing a Muslim celebratory song. I understand that atheists are outnumbered by Christians, but that doesn't mean that one group's rights are more important than another. As I have said before, I have no problem with Christian anything. I have a problem with anything religious, Christian or otherwise, being placed in a setting that is constitutionally not supposed to advocate for any religion.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chemvictim wrote:Sparky brought this up on facebook. I wondered what you guys thought.

School choir performing Christmas music in church.

My first thought was this should be a non-issue. This is what choirs do. It's supposed to be voluntary. The article makes it sound like atheists are complaining just to be grumpy elfs, but I suspect someone from the school district complained and that's how the ACLU and FFRF got involved in the first place.

If you're not a Christian, at what point does it become a problem if your kid has to sing religious songs for choir at public school? That's not exactly the issue here, but it's what I'm thinking about. It's "voluntary," but opting out will draw negative attention to the kid. I read (now I have lost the link) that the ACLU dropped their objection for the one school whose choir was extracurricular. Apparently the other choirs are not extracurricular.



This is one of those things where I think something is so cut and dry obvious, I have trouble relating to those people that seek to defend this type of behavior.

What part of the separation of church and state is so damn confusing?

When the PUBLIC SCHOOL'S CHOIR has an official event IN A CHURCH singing RELIGIOUS SONGS it's not ok.

No opting in, or opting out, or including other religions makes it ok. There should be zero, null, nula, nul, cero, religion involved with public school. The only exception would be education about religion (comparative religions, history of religion, etc.)

The standard is SO easy to understand it pains me.

kylemittskus wrote:I always wonder how it would be if the school wanted to sing a Muslim celebratory song. I understand that atheists are outnumbered by Christians, but that doesn't mean that one group's rights are more important than another. As I have said before, I have no problem with Christian anything. I have a problem with anything religious, Christian or otherwise, being placed in a setting that is constitutionally not supposed to advocate for any religion.


Exactly!

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

I'm a little surprised that your responses were so strong on this, I considered it kind of a gray area.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the bible belt, but this seemed somewhat normal to me - but, as soon as someone complained, I think the school should have reconsidered. It doesn't mean the kids can't sing Christmas songs at church, only that it can't be a school activity.

I see this framed as an issue that "The Atheists" caused, but what about other non-Christians? Does a Jewish kid want to sing Christmas songs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:I'm a little surprised that your responses were so strong on this, I considered it kind of a gray area.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the bible belt, but this seemed somewhat normal to me - but, as soon as someone complained, I think the school should have reconsidered. It doesn't mean the kids can't sing Christmas songs at church, only that it can't be a school activity.

I see this framed as an issue that "The Atheists" caused, but what about other non-Christians? Does a Jewish kid want to sing Christmas songs?



This isn't a gray area at all. The gov't needs to be completely free of any religious affiliation. Period.

I'm not sure how Sparky packaged the quote or if he did at all, but these types of stories are generally about the atheists trying to stop religion. And that's what makes me the most angry about this kind of story. The issue is that a gov't agency, representative, etc. is advocating not only religion, but a specific one. That is an issue. People having a problem with it, and the constitution having a problem with it, is not the issue.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:This isn't a gray area at all. The gov't needs to be completely free of any religious affiliation. Period.

I'm not sure how Sparky packaged the quote or if he did at all, but these types of stories are generally about the atheists trying to stop religion. And that's what makes me the most angry about this kind of story. The issue is that a gov't agency, representative, etc. is advocating not only religion, but a specific one. That is an issue. People having a problem with it, and the constitution having a problem with it, is not the issue.



Oh, you know I'll get myself in big trouble here, but I will say that Sparky thought it was ridiculous that the atheists would have a problem with this. (this is a sincere attempt to summarize what he said and not to put words in his mouth, please don't smite me Sparky)

This is something that I was very accustomed to seeing in school (the singing of Christmas songs). I think there is a decent case to be made that certain religious songs are also of interest as choir songs, but I guess when you move it into a church and call it a celebration of Jesus, etc. it becomes a religious thing. It might seem oppressive to some people, but if you're not the dominant religion it's going to look different to you.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:Exactly!



[End Lurking]



You need to read the article. Chem linked this article whichs has more information, Church-state battle envelops school choirs.

The issue is not that it is a private, Christian event. Which it isn't, being a free public event (“Peace on Earth Community Christmas Celebration” ) held in a Cathedral (which usually means very excellent acoustics for singing).

The issue is no one is being forced to sing, no one is being forced to attend a religious event. The issue is people (atheists & ACLU) trying to violate rights.

There is no "approval" or "promotion" or other "endorsing or advancing a specific religious message or denomination". They are simply singing, one of the main functions of a choir.

As one of the responses from one of the school districts,

“One could interpret that by denying district students the opportunity to participate because of the Christian theme of the overall event might be in violation of the second half of the establishment clause, ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Students may ‘opt out’ of assignments and/or activities that might conflict with their belief system to assure that the district is not placing them in a situation they might find uncomfortable.”


Michele Reese, the public affairs director for the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, agreed with Schottle’s stance and said the decision to perform at the free Christmas celebration has nothing to do with religion. Reese added that the event was open to the public — whether a person is religious or not — and that many people will enjoy both the music and nativities on display for artistic rather than religious reasons.



It's free, it's open, and it's not a church service (contrary to the false information claimed by the atheists).



Schottle said complaints of this type are a regular occurrence as the holiday season nears. Schottle said when students perform for a group such as Rotary, or at a nursing home, for example, the school isn’t endorsing the group’s ideology or a business’s practices simply because of an event theme or venue.

“If any group, whether faith-based or not, wants our students to perform and it fits into our schedule, we quite frequently allow students to perform,” Schottle said.



I'm all for removing "under God" from the Pledge, and agree that there does need to be Separation of Church and State. But let's remember that it's not Freedom from Religion, but rather Freedom OF Religion.

It just gets so ridiculous when common sense gets thrown out. And this is just another instance of that. Singing is an art form, and some people just can't accept that without injecting their own agenda into it.


End

[Resume Lurking]


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:bunch of hooey



Mark,

The very short fact devoid hatchet piece that was linked from Faux News said just that a public school choir was having one of it's concerts in a church, singing religious and secular songs. The second you sing religious songs in a church, you're way over the line.

You yourself just told us it's the “Peace on Earth Community Christmas Celebration”

There is no 'unless you can opt out' clause in the separation of church and state.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

From Sparky's MUUUCH more detailed link:
"Choirs from Glacier, Flathead and Whitefish high schools will perform as planned today and Friday during the “Peace on Earth Community Christmas Celebration”

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

"The event in question is billed as a celebration of “the birth of our savior Jesus Christ,”

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

"featuring hundreds of nativity displays"

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

The most totally asinine piece of faulty logic from dumb-dumb-land:

“One could interpret that by denying district students the opportunity to participate because of the Christian theme of the overall event might be in violation of the second half of the establishment clause, ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Students may ‘opt out’ of assignments and/or activities that might conflict with their belief system to assure that the district is not placing them in a situation they might find uncomfortable.”

Sophistry at it's best.

1) "Opting out" of non religious activities is allowed when those activities conflict with your freedom of religion. Totally different issue.

2) The "Students of the Blahdetyblah Central District Choir" are FREE to go and sing at a religious concert. BUT THE SCHOOL'S CHOIR IS NOT.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
mother wrote:From Sparky's MUUUCH more detailed link:
"Choirs from Glacier, Flathead and Whitefish high schools will perform as planned today and Friday during the “Peace on Earth Community Christmas Celebration”



Really dude?? As I said, Chem originally found the link. AND it did have more information in it that the Fox News link. (Funny thing, Fox is both the Most AND Least Trusted news source, followed by PBS, CNN, and ABC.)

Tone down the vitriolic, please. And so glad you missed out on the PEACE part of the celebration.

Tis the reason for the season!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
MarkDaSpark wrote:Really dude?? As I said, Chem originally found the link. AND it did have more information in it that the Fox News link. (Funny thing, Fox is both the Most AND Least Trusted news source, followed by PBS, CNN, and ABC.)

Tone down the vitriolic, please. And so glad you missed out on the PEACE part of the celebration.

Tis the reason for the season!



Sorry you were arguing like it's debatable how totally christian the event is, and it's got the word 'christ' right in it, that's the point there ;)

Sorry for the over-spleening.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
mother wrote:Sorry you were arguing like it's debatable how totally christian the event is, and it's got the word 'christ' right in it, that's the point there ;)

Sorry for the over-spleening.



I don't know what over-spleening means really, but I like it!