There is now no shortage of deranged troglodytes going around, they have no sense or morals and they definitely should be jailed if caught.
49 responses Add your response
Damage done to the Cathedral containing the pipe organ upon which J.S. Bach performed some of his music has nothing to do with audio?! Okay, if Abbey Road Studio is vandalized, nobody dare mention it on Audiogon.Thank you, bdp24. Exactly the reason I posted this. Having performed and listened to untold number of the works of J.S. Bach, this news was hard to stomach.
It’s obviously too late for the person(s) responsible for this but it does increasingly look like educational strategies need to be looked again at with fresh eyes - especially in light of the tremendous changes we have seen in the last 25 years or so.
Social media may well be having a terrible dehumanising effect upon our generation. It’s too early to be certain, but there are plenty of signs already.
A good start might be to ensure that all perpetrators of aggressive violent acts should be made intimately familiar with the feelings and thoughts of their victims (friends and families included).
It’s also a pity that better preventative measures were not put in place. After the Notre Dame fire last year and the 2008 one at Universal Studios, it almost seems as if respect for history is fast becoming an early casualty of all this change.
I’m usually in favour of some iconoclastic behaviour - but this kind of thoughtless idiocy is going too far.
Parenting is easy. In theory.
You just have to get your children from birth to adulthood where they will be able to meet all the various demands for a successful existence.
1 Understand how their environment works
2 How their bodies work
3 How to get enough money to comfortably pay their way in life
4 How relationships work.
and perhaps the most important one,
5 How to assemble a cost effective satisfying Hi-Fi system.
Tricky, to say the least.
*Bear in mind also that it’s a big mistake to rely upon education systems to do the work for you as they usually fail to deliver on most counts.
@schubert , it’s good to hear that Germany has survived Angela Merkel.
Due to recent democratic reform almost 50% of young Britains now enter higher education. 40 years ago it was around 3%.
This increased freedom to advance career prospects through hard work and merit must always be welcomed but you also have to account for an inevitable drop in standards too.
Thankfully the advance of digital archiving means that in future we will be able to easily preserve a facsimile of whatever artefacts of civilization we consider worth preserving.
The fly in this ointment though is that these decisions are usually still left to politicians and accountants.
One thing I’d like to see being done now would be uncut in depth interviews with the leading scientists and thinkers recorded for posterity.
Books, records, films, photos etc can be great but little beats a good face to face interview for historical purposes.
**.Has all decency left the entire planet? **
Of course not! There are many examples of great decency around us. Now, as concerns this specific deranged act that is probably nothing more than the result of ignorance, why should this be the least bit surprising? The reason for the feelings of horror are ours; we who appreciate the importance of Bach.
If I had to guess, anyone who would muster up the will to do something like that, appreciation of Bach or not, is probably not operating with a full deck. Mentally or ideologically unstable individuals have always existed. Culturally and spiritually important sites and symbols have been targeted by ideologues and the unstable throughout history.
Having said all that, why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education, that appreciation and respect for a church that is an expression of the actual reason and purpose of Bach’s music should be disrespected like this?
Frogman, your last paragraph has certain ambiguous meaning, at least to me.
Would you be so kind to explain it better?
If I may add something and hoping that it has some relation to the original subject, I would say that by all means any religion has no place in any 'official' education in any secular state.
Sorry it seems ambiguous to you, alex. I think the meaning is actually quite clear. Debating here the specific issue that you raise would probably be pointless, but I will point out a couple of things that may help make the meaning of what I wrote less ambiguous for you.
Please note that nowhere did I use the word “religion”. I also think that your use of the word “official” is interesting. Bach was not a secularist. He was an orthodox Lutheran and much of his music was an expression of his spiritual beliefs and conservatism. That aspect of the total significance and importance of that church cannot be simply taken out of the equation.
I don’t know exactly what caused the perpetrator to do such a thing. However, what I think I do know is that it is unlikely that what leads to respect for and appreciation of the complete history of that church is being taught in “official” education. We can’t have it both ways.
Frogman, please stop me (or op. for that matter) if you think that this conversation has no place in this thread.
However, in meantime, this is the sentence from your previous post that I find controversial...
'why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education... Bach’s music should be disrespected like this ...
Imho, any disrespect or barbarisam toward any civil or cultural heritage, may come from any number of reasons and none of them should be justified, no matter what 'explanation' may be in someones head.
But, on the other hand, I am quite sure that teachings about any God should be kept inside the religious institutions and not the part of any public ('official' ) education or constitution, except other than learning about history of it.
In this particular case, I believe that nobody single picked Bach to make some kind of statement and I dont think that Bach's relationship with church should be problem or significance (other than scholars) to anybody today.
Putting these things in some kind of correlation I find to be very ambiguous
Alex, I’m short on time at this moment. There was nothing in what I wrote that suggested that the behavior should or could be “excused”.
**** I dont think that Bach's relationship with church should be problem or significance (other than scholars) to anybody today. ****
Problem? No. But, significance? I couldn’t disagree more. In no way suggesting that the two could be compared on artistic grounds, but would you deny the composer of, for example, an honest protest song from the civil rights era the message or intended meaning of the song, the very reason for the composition and relegate the significance to scholars’ journals only? Why should the average music lover care about those things? Right? Pretty melody and nothing else?
Frogman, neither I said that you said something about 'excuses'.
I quoted some other sentence of yours, when you got the time, take a look.
Reageding Bach, would you say that only a person with deep understanding of his relationship with church and perhaps with simmilar feelings can enjoy his music?
Do you believe that 'others' would be less capable doing so?
**** Imho, any disrespect or barbarisam toward any civil or cultural heritage, may come from any number of reasons and none of them should be justified, no matter what ’explanation’ may be in someones head. ****
“justified”=excused. Same meaning in this context.
**** would you say that only a person with deep understanding of his relationship with church and perhaps with simmilar feelings can enjoy his music?
Do you believe that ’others’ would be less capable doing so? ****
I think you know the answer to the first question. Of course not. As far as your second question goes, it is pointless to try and judge how much, more or less, any one person would enjoy the music. What I do know is that there is important significance to the fact that his music was inspired by a wish to praise his God. How anyone can suggest that this understanding would not give a more complete picture of the composer and the meaning of his music is beyond me; and, this is (should be) independent of the listener’s own beliefs. Would you seriously suggest that understanding the meaning of Holiday’s “Strange Fruit” would not give the song added poignancy and meaning? Or, that NOT knowing is an equally complete/meaningful understanding of the song?
If one destroys the history of a group, then the cohesion and the forward motion of the origins of the drive in people is disturbed and thus malleable.
It is very high on the list of things to do when attempting to corrupt or end a society or culture. One of the most insistent and utilized tactics in the art of non linear or asymmetrical warfare.
Generally used as a softening up technique before actual shifts of the group are effected by pre-planned false flags. attack on the blind side of people. No different than the lion sneaking up in the tall grass to attack and end the blissfully unaware.
Part of the gaming of a group. It is dreadfully easy to do, as willful ignorance usually rules the day... as people don't like to think of the alternatives, alternatives that are very painful to realize.
As Rahm Emanuel said, 'never let a good crisis go to waste.' The question is...who set the stage and who pulled the trigger. We've been torn on the tip of these things since long before Spartacus got gamed. And consequently...Rome was turned into a dictatorial bloodbath that lasted 400 years.
The west has had about a good decade plus now.. of unsustainable high levels of enforced immigration, in most cases to the level that cohesive societies in the west are being torn.
Ask yourself why, and who ...is gaming it.
@schubert, "the Hell of colonialism" can often eventually be seen as a good thing.
It takes time of course, often a lot of time. I think I'm still in the minority here in the UK who are truly grateful for the kick up the backsides we received at the hands of both Julius Caesar and William the Bastard (or William the Conqueror as he is also known).
Far too often ignorance and evil are co-mingled as one- and this is not usually the case. To think it is becomes dangerous - large groups can be denigrated and targeted due to the acts of a few ignorant members- not evil- but ignorant. Please don’t take this as high-brow preaching- not the intent- but when forming an opinion around an act or event- consider attempting to determine if what you have witnessed is truly evil, or just a tragic act of ignorance. I suggest the latter can be forgiven regardless of the magnitude of the offense. The former less so.
Only if you are a complete fool cd318 . Which millions of Brits are as they dream of their days of Empire . The millions England killed to make
that Empire got no time . Same excuse is made here in US about the slave trade , not with the fact that 50% of the slaves died on their trip and were throw to the sharks ’.
Alex , you might not be able to grasp this , but for many tens of millions of people all over this planet J.S. Bach plays a SIGNIFICANT role in their religious life, and not only Christians at that .
And I will say that the pious DO get depths of meaning that the non-religious do not . Start with the cantatas and passions .
P.S . I do not mean to imply you are a fool cd318
overwine , you make a good point , but only God knows what is forgivable .As to a few , at least half the total American population is totally ignorant .
I appreciate your passion. My comment around forgiveness was in more of an earthly manner of forgiveness- not in the absolution type. We will just need to disagree on your last point about ignorance. IMHO, Ignorance is dependent on the form of defined enlightenment. I am possibly over optimistic about the American public, but if so I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and remain in my delusion. Thanks for the discourse.
Schubert, I am not sure did you understand what I wanted to say at my first comment
I believe every word you say about Bach or his role in somebodys religous life, but that was not the point of my objection.
I have simply said, au contraire to Frogman, that I do not think that moral erosion is society is caused by lack of 'religious influences' in education. (its a paraphrase, but I guess it comes to that)
Imho, religious teachings, of any kind,(except as mentioned as part of history,art literature,music or philosophy or part of some some other subject in context) should not be part of public education in secular society.
Also, lack of such edcation in secular state does not meen that it will sink to moral decline without it
Alex, I think that your definition of “teachings” differs from mine. I suppose that, for example, the removal of what was previously a national motto “In God We Trust” (a motto for a country which was actually founded on Judeo-Christian principles), or a simple moment of silence to let anyone pray IF he wishes can be seen by the secularists or the cynics as a form of “teaching”. I disagree. I see no point in further debate on the subject since it is obvious we disagree on what does, in fact, contribute (please note that I say contribute to, not “caused”) to moral decline in a society. I feel I have explained myself fairly well on that point.
**** should not be part of public education in secular society. ****
Honest question: Why not? I have explained what I think is the harm in the removal. What exactly is it you think is the harm in not removing it?
Frogman, I disagre with a term 'in fact' in a context you have used it.
But, let me explain my thoughts, aldo I am sure that you are quite familiar with everything I 've got to say.
With all due respect I am surprised that I have to write such things in year 2020 (why religious education or upbringing should remain private thing)
The state has power not based on divine law (jus divinum) but on social contract that transcends religious, religious and any other personal or particular interests.
The state is thus positioned wider and more general than any particularism, especially religious, in order to guarantee citizens neutrality, so that every citizen can address the state if certain groups threaten his existence and world view by imposing his particular belifs
According to the postmodern understanding of society, the religious community as well as all social associations not only have the right of political stance, it is indispensable for pluralism to be complete. But in order to maintain pluralism, the state must remain the sole guarantor of generality and neutrality, and its constitution a guarantor of abstractness so that no particularity or individuality is favored. The law (constitution) of the state,let us not forget, is not written on a case-by-case basis and can apply equally to everyone only if the state is not part of any particular association
Religious education in public school classrooms would impair the neutrality of the state.The students of 'other' confessions or agnostics might think that, in addition to the equal rights they enjoy, there are nevertheless those who are more desirable, or "more equal" than them.
Some society might be, religiously and culturally majority religious, but it is decisive that this fact has nothing to do with the notion of majority or the notion of state, which in a civic sense should ensure neutrality for those who are in the minority.
It is precisely in this symbolic example (absence of religious education or any other form of religious influence in public or 'official' institutions) that the importance of state neutrality is perceived, that is, the reason why it emerged as an abstract, impersonal power which, in its breadth, abstractness and generality, transcends particularisms, in this case religious, but also of any other.
Only if there are no particular features in such places, citizens of another confessions or non religious people can except the state (or school) as their own, as one that is not only for members of some particular confession. Citizenship is not related to confessional affiliation. Nationality and citizenship in the western tradition differ and are not conditioned by religious affiliation, which is why citizenship as a legal term is broader and more general than belonging to a nation or confession.
In simplified terms, this means that no matter how many citizens on the census declare themselves believers for any reason, state neutrality exists because of one citizen who does not declare himself so. Only then can one speak of the liberal-democratic character of the state, because the will of the individual is protected from the will and worldview of the overwhelming majority.
One slight problem with what you say Alex . To a large degree what you say
is applicable ONLY in Denmark, Norway. Iceland ,Sweden, Finland and Canada .
To a lesser degree in Baltic lands .
What you say is pure fairly-tale in US which is a Republic and NOT a liberal -democratic anything..In Germany maybe 50/50 .In other large , powerful lands its dog eat dog . Biggest dogs are owned by richest people and those who serve them .
Schubert, allow me to correct you, it might be a surprise.
Also, many of following states are Republics too and all western countries are considered to be liberal democracys, in fact, here is the link
In Europe, only Spain, Romania, Norway and Turkey have some sort of mandatory religious education.
In Norway such subject is called ’Christianity, religion and philosophy of life’ and it is going thru public discussions is it ’fair’ or not to be educated.
In Spain you might be excluded from such education if you bring the conformation that you are not religious, the rule which has seen objection as well.
In Austria, Italy, Germany, Poland, Portugal and in some ex Yugoslavian states, the pupils can attend such subjects at schools, but religious education is not mandatory, meaning that children can usually chose between religious or some sort of subject that teaches ethics (also not mandatory)
Belgium has the same model, but the classes are mandatory, one or another kind
Greece, Holland and Great Britain have different solution. The teachings about religion are included in some subjects which are not stricly religious
So, in Greece its called ’The history of religions’ , the Dutch have something that can be translated as ’Knowing of societys, with history of religion included and in Britain they learn about few different religions and its praxes
France, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czech republic have no religious education at schools at all.
The Switzerland have many different models, all above included.
In constitution of EU, there is no mention of religious roots or connections
.Is it a fairy tale for the US, I would not know, but its never too late to become your reality too
Alex, you insist on suggesting that our disagreement is over state sanctioned or mandated religious “teachings” or formal religious “education”. I have not suggested anything of the sort. I don’t know of a better way of explaining my stance than how I already have. We can intellectualize matters to the degree that we miss the forest for the trees.
For me it is about freedom and the recognition of history and tradition. Freedom to be granted to the believer as well as the non-believer. There is no agenda or pressure to exclude or to force the non-believer to conform in any way. What I do see is the kind of militancy and single minded view that is as narrow for the militant non believer as it is for the militant believer. An attitude that demands that there not be any kind of middle ground.
Moreover, and not meaning to personalize matters beyond that which has already occurred, to my way of thinking there
is a very strong parallel between our respective views and attitude and what led to the involvement of “the other thread“.
**** Is it a fairy tale for the US, I would not know, but its never too late to become your reality too ****
I hope it doesn’t.
Frogman, sometimes its really hard to get a straight answer from you, glad that you openly stated such a cynical remark in your last sentence.
You write and I quote, again '.... why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education'....etc
For me, enough said. I dont think that anybody can or should try to 'remove' such things from a person's mind, heart, home or from any private place.
But, it can and it should be removed from all 'public' institutions or education, for all the reasons I have wrote 2 posts before.
Your last sentence seems to be very bitter and even worse, it represents the attitude very different from what the Americans usually and with pride represent as core value they are willing to fight for, that is the freedom of choice for any individual
Just imagine that instead of 'religious education' we are discussing 'marxist education'. Would you still say and I quote
...'There is no agenda or pressure to exclude or to force the non-believer to conform in any way.' .....
It takes the same mindframe that will try to implement singlemindness for everybody, or to think that there is no harm in that.
What that subject might be is irrelevant for this story.
Explain me how there would be no pressure for non believers if (marxist or religious, it makes no difference) education is mandatory?
If you cant grasp such a basic concept of individual liberty, protection of every individual and personal choice in public education even after I wrote the page where I have explained the reasons behind such praxis (in Europe) than really my words are wasted on deaf ears, but next time you take a moment or two, before you decide to tell me some fairytail
@schubert , I understand your discomfort but the unfortunate truth is that human beings have been squabbling over resources (land, people, and valuable commodities etc - oil is the current big one now) since day 1.
You only have to look at military spending to see how much this principle holds true today. I mean, ask yourself why does the US spend more on 'defence' than China, Russia, Saudi, India, France, Germany and the UK all combined?
The map of the world has never stopped changing and the squabbling to change it further is going on right now. Meanwhile the Doomsday Clock inches towards midnight...
Still, no one can figure out how to reverse this inevitable march to catastrophe. Religious conflicts have done nothing to help whatsoever. In fact some belief systems even regard global anhilation as a worthy prophecy awaiting fulfilment. It has been so written, some of them believe. Imagine the consequences if such belief systems ever acquire the means to carry out such actions. Kind of reminds me of that scenario from the 1970 film Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
My own hope is that interplanetary travel will provide us with sorely needed new vistas to conquer and fight over. Shades of 2001 Space Odyssey but only with better software.
It's what we do best.
Alex, I am willing to assume that our disagreement is the result of some kind of cultural divide. From my vantage point you have blinders on to what I am trying to suggest. I have to assume that your cultural background simply doesn’t allow for the understanding of what I suggest; just as, I suppose, mine does not allow me to understand yours. You pepper your comments with many “shoulds” as if your viewpoint should be taken as dogma (sorry) without room for an alternate view. All I can do at this point is to try and address a couple of your specific comments and to remind you that what started all this was not any kind of advocacy on my part, but an expression of what I see as a byproduct of one specific approach. The points:
**** Your last sentence seems to be very bitter and even worse ****
Not in the least. It is one of hope. I do, however, find it fascinating that you would interpret it as “very bitter”.
**** it represents the attitude very different from what the Americans usually and with pride represent as core value they are willing to fight for, that is the freedom of choice for any individual ****
Not in the least. You are not grasping what I meant by “middle ground”. Moreover, I suspect you don’t understand “Americans” nearly as well as you think you do. At least half the population of this country would agree with me.
**** Explain me how there would be no pressure for non believers if (marxist or religious, it makes no difference) education is mandatory? ****
The blinders. For the last time, no one has advocated for “mandatory” religious education.
**** (marxist or religious, it makes no difference) ****
Bingo! Oh, but it does. Big difference. Now we are getting somewhere.
Getting back to the original question:
”Decency is everywhere. You just have to go out and find it.” - Onhwy61
Frogman, ' let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late'....
Usually there is always a possibility for missunderstanding, so I kindly ask you, again, to explain on which kind of education you thought when you wrote and I quote, again
...' why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education' ...etc
Now, to me, that does sounds like the way I understood it, but you are free to explain otherwise, please
'My view point' is not mine, per se, nor it is dogmatic.
It is the view represented by majority of secular european states.
There is no room for middle ground when freedom (in general sense, regarding this subject) is in question.
Either you are free or not.
I do not claim to understand Americans, or anyone else for that matter, but I assure you that I fully understand the ethics of idea I write about.
Since I am trying to make you explain your quoted sentence (I will give you the benefit of doubt) will not try to assume what is exactly the fact that you or half of America have in common.
Since you said that you did not mention 'mandatory' (its true) I must ask on which kind of education you thought?
What kind of education can be 'removed' (from where?) if its not already fixed as such? ('mandatory')
As for marxist or religious education, of course that it makes no difference...if its forced (mandatory) to be thought, it is the same for the ones who will have to learn it,if it is against their will.
But, let us not slip into empty talk....
As for bitternes, even if I missunderstood your words (regarding mandatory education) nothing that I wrote should represent something that one should be hopefull that such thing would not happen....
Respect for every individual and his rights should be duty of every civilizied society and everything I wrote in my posts before explains why and how such things are dealt with in Europe (regarding subject of r.edc)
Now, you may not like it and you may hope that it will never happen in the US, but I challenge anyone to tell me what is the better solution?
cd318 , FACT, humans have been more peaceful than anything else since day one.People who make money from war and live for power tell you different and you swallow it .
US spends more than rest of world combined because hundreds of years
of brainwashing had made a population that believes militarism is as normal as the air they breathe and our soldiers , sailors and airman being in every nook and cranny of the planet is as normal as the night follows the day .
Alex, please read my comments (all) again. Your answer and explanation to the quoted sentence is there....if you want to see it. And, please, do not suggest I am speaking falsely. Your accusatory attitude is very telling; and this discussion, discussion which you solicited by challenging an expressed viewpoint not directed at you is quickly going down a very negative path. You make accusations of “false” statements, you take liberties in your desire to involve others, you “challenge”, you “should” this and that and more. To me, this is not conducive to constructive dialogue.
**** Respect for every individual and his rights should be duty of every civilizied society ****
Agreed! And that includes the believers..... and not just in the ways and in the settings that you see fit....the middle ground.
Frogman, I am repeatedtly asking you to answer to my very simple question regarding your quoted comment.
It such answer we shall not read than I am very uncertain why do you keep this discussion going.
'Let us stop talking falsely' meaning in vain, for both of us
It is absolutley frutile trying to paint me as somebody who has a desire to claim how somebody ’should’ behave, since I am not expressing my personal viewpoint but certain praxis in many European states, on some which I agree with
I guess nobody should object on anything that I wrote of such matter, even if he shares your opinion, since there is also stated this
....’According to the postmodern understanding of society, the religious community as well as all social associations not only have the right of political stance, it is indispensable for pluralism to be complete. But in order to maintain pluralism, the state must remain the sole guarantor of generality and neutrality, and its constitution a guarantor of abstractness so that no particularity or individuality is favored.’
So, it is not about finding middle ground between ’my’ opinion and yours.
It is about the best what civilization right now has to offer and your opinion, whatever it might be.
I am very curios to hear specific answers what do you do not like or do not agree about it.(European praxis)