Has all decency left the entire planet?

You’re not getting it.  See you on the Jazz thread.

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.

Regards.

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.

Regards.


Getting back to the original question:

”Decency is everywhere. You just have to go out and find it.” - Onhwy61

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.

Regards.

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?

**** 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? 

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? 

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.

**.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?