Playing Christian Radio station at city pool??

[flygal]

Yesterday at a city water park they were blasting a Christian radio station. My sister is agnostic and complained and the guy was really ornery about it and put on a hard rock station. We were with some pretty devoted Catholics and even they were annoyed - there were about two very dramatic songs and then a preaching for a few minutes for each loop. We waited for others to complain but nothing.

Does anyone have advice on how to contact the city. This was in Great Falls Montana. I really don't want to get legal on them - they may not be aware their employee is doing this.

[yellowcanine]

1. Not sure this is a Constitutional issue as just a common courtesy issue.

People in control of the music at a facility serving the public should be sensitive to the sensibilities of all the patrons and choose music accordingly. Overly sectarian music should not be played and neither should overly loud music or music with offensive lyrics be played. Before contacting the city I would see if the guy has a supervisor who might not be aware of what is going on.

[TexasObserver]

4. Yes, it is a constitutional issue.

The pool is an asset of government, run by government. Playing Christian music is promoting that religion, which is prohibited by the constitution, and made applicable to governments at all levels.

[yellowcanine]

6. It is a question of choosing battles, though. Imo music at a pool is not a battle worth fighting at

the Constitutional level - particularly since it is likely that it could be made moot by making a cogent common courtesy argument to the powers that be.

[TexasObserver]

9. No, it's a question of understanding constitutional law and insisting it be followed.

If you want to be meek, that's your choice, but don't suggest it's how one should be if they embrace progressive values.

[yellowcanine]

12. Why use a howitzer when a pea shooter will work? Question of tactics. Meek is not doing anything.

I am not suggesting not doing anything. Insist away by all means if you wish. Just don't be surprised if you end up making the situation worse. Honey, flies, etc.

[TexasObserver]

13. If you like to grovel, that's your business. I don't.

[yellowcanine]

16. "meek", "grovel"..... When your argument is not sufficient, go for the ad hominem characterization?

[rd_kent]

93. It is most definitely a battle worth fighting

There should be zero tolerance of any religious activity at any government facility. Period.

[marshall]

99. On the other hand, most rock music endorses and promotes heterosexist standards

They could just get rid of the radio altogether. That way it would be easier to have conversations and also parents could hear their children. Who would want to take the chance of not hearing a child in trouble scream because the radio is blaring?

[LanternWaste]

28. Like Ave Maria ...

"Playing Christian music is promoting that religion

Like Ave Maria or Joy to the World being played by the White House or by a city-sponsored civic Christmas celebration?

[TexasObserver]

32. No, we're not talking about the War on Christmas.

If you need to have it explained to understand the difference, explaining it to you isn't going to help.

[LanternWaste]

61. If it helps you to better validate your positions...

If it helps you to better validate your positions, by all means-- minimize the different perspectives. It's not uncommon anymore.

Christian music (albeit traditional) played in a government setting, paid by our taxes, but it's a Holiday-- that being your relevant differences, yes?

[rd_kent]

94. Those songs should not be played either. n/t

[LanternWaste]

109. Or the March of Mars

Or the March of Mars-- a Roman marching song penned by priests of Mars-- popular as a boot camp marching song in WWI. Or the tin-pan alley standard, When the Saints Go Matching In. Or even a lot of religiously oriented place names like San Antonio (Saint Anthony) or Arizona (O'odham Indian word for “little spirit")...

Gosh, the list goes on and on. So many city, state, river and park names, and so many songs should be stricken from the government workplace immediately.

Banned, as many would say.

[Kalyke]

39. Wow... so we can't listen to U2 at the public pool?

:eyes:

Really... sometimes people go a bit far.

Just ask, politely, to have the station changed. Geez.

[Bill McBlueState]

41. not if it fails the Lemon test.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

[TexasObserver]

45. Wear your earphones, bring your own music and listen to whatever you want.

If you want to listen to Christian music, put it in your ear or otherwise keep it to yourself.

And have you ever heard any Christian station play U-2? Hell no.

[Xithras]

47. Depends on the purpose for which it was being played.

If the government employee had the music playing for his own personal enjoyment, then 1A doesn't apply. If the employee was playing the music for public broadcast or entertainment, then 1A does apply. If the music was being played over a PA, then it's obviously a public performance. If he just had a portable radio sitting next to him and was playing it too loudly, it's very unlikely that there's a real 1A case here. The even public employees have a legal right to express their religious beliefs on the job, if it's not done so in a way that is preaching or promoting that material to the public. The mere fact that the activity can be seen by the public isn't enough to qualify as promoting (otherwise, public employees would be banned from wearing a crucifix, praying over their lunches, or wearing religious garb of any kind).

Of course, if he's playing it for public entertainment, then the question of ASCAP fees also has to come up somewhere. It's illegal to play copyrighted music in any place of business or public venue, for the entertainment of your customers or visitors, without paying for an ASCAP license. That should actually be the cities bigger concern. That $25,000 public performance fine should get their attention.

[TexasObserver]

52. If I need a law clerk, I'll send you a note.

I addressed the facts the OP set out. You didn't. You imagined a variety of possible scenarios that were not present. If you want to be a lawyer, you're going to have to learn to focus on the issues, as presented by the facts your client lays out.

The OP was specific. The music was blaring loudly throughout the facility. That makes it music sponsored by the governmental entity, and therefore proscribed conduct. If you doubt it, I suggest you call your local city attorney and ask them if you can have Christian music played at the public pools the city operates.

[yellowcanine]

72. But his screed did point out why I say "Don't make a federal case out of it."

Because if you do, you get lawyers. And lawyers complicate things - always. Why not keep it simple by appealing to the pool management on common courtesy grounds and see whether that solves the problem?

Discussion with pool management.
Pool management talks to employee.
Employee changes behavior.

Or:

Lawyer gets involved, sends letter to city.
City trots out their own lawyers.
Story in local newspaper gets picked up by AP and the internets.
Citizens on both sides get involved, shout at each other. BillO, Sean Insanity, Limbballs et al. chime in. Fred Phelps comes and calls everyone faggots. Citizens interrupt city council meetings by chanting the Pledge of Allegiance, shouting out "UNDER GOD".
Many moons, LTTEs, websites, blogs, legal briefs and dollars later....
Judge orders city to talk to pool management to talk to pool employee.
Employee changes behavior.

But what do I know? I am just a meek grovelling little rabbit, you see.

[meegbear]

2. Send a polite but firm letter ...

tell them that you felt that the station was not appropriate in that situation and that a more 'neutral' station should be played, based on the demographic. You should also let them know that the person there did change the station, but leave out the ornery part.

[Ian David]

3. Contact Americans United for advice

http://www.au.org/about/contact.html

[SoCalDem]

5. Why do people need music ...everywhere?

I don't understand it. Is there nowhere that's "safe", for people to enjoy some normal, ambient sounds and ponder their own thoughts?

[TokenQueer]

8. I'm sorry, what did you say?

I had to remove my iPod, mute the television, finish a text message and close 8 open DU threads... Now, what did you say?

[JayMusgrove]

34. LOL second laugh of the afternoon. but seriously

Really, no one should be playing music at a public pool.

It is a safety hazard.

[surrealAmerican]

15. At a public pool, it may be to prevent members of the public ...

... from each playing their own music.

I tend to agree that the whole world does not need to be a music venue all the time.

[Xithras]

48. Learn this phrase..

"Do you have an ASCAP license to play music here?"

Most people don't. If you're playing copyrighted music in any kind of public area for entertainment, you MUST have an ASCAP license. Even if you're just playing the radio, you must have a license if it's a "public broadcast" for the enjoyment of your customers.

ASCAP enforces it and will almost always follow up an anonymous tip. The law allows them to assess fines of up to $25,000, and repeated willful infringements can land you in jail for a year.

So...when you're in a place that's playing annoying music, ask them if they have an ASCAP license. When they say no, point out to them that they're risking a $25,000 fine. When they ask how ASCAP would find out, just smile and walk away.

[Joanne98]

7. Evangelicals are so PUSHY!

[TexasObserver]

17. Yes, they assume we all need to hear musicians who aren't good enough to make it.

Hammer time.

[Festivito]

19. You mean those evangelical agnostics who can't live with other religions?

Have to have no religion religiously practiced everywhere the public gathers.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

[kimmylavin]

22. Its a pool!

Is there some need for religion at a pool?
Please, get over yourself.

[Festivito]

24. Indeed, get over yourself, and your no-religion at a pool religion.

So there.

[kimmylavin]

42. Brilliant retort.

Really top notch.
Are we in third grade?

Are you honestly complaining about the fact the people don't want to hear a religious broadcast at a pool? Are you honestly saying that to complain about such a thing is religious intolerance?

[Festivito]

51. Thank you, and no, we're not in the same class it would seem.

They have a right to complain, they even have a right to religious intolerance. What they don't have is the right to assume that their beliefs necessarily trump that of someone else when it comes to what they want to hear.

They asked for some time without it, they got that, and if later it goes back on, then get an amendment to the Constitution that goes further. Have it deny freedom of speech when some people want freedom of quiet, or the freedom to have no speech when they want no speech or porn or music.

I don't think it would be viable, but, hey, it might fly.

Good luck in third grade.

[kevinbgoode]

79. Excuse me? Religious choice is a highly personal thing.

In a city-owned public pool, being subjected to the broadcasts of ONE person's selected "religious" beliefs is over-the-top. Listen to it in your church, in your car, in your home. Keep it out of my face. People likely pay admission to use a public pool - and they aren't paying to attend forced "church" services.

[Festivito]

87. Go for that Constitutional rewrite. And, who are you? /nt

[kevinbgoode]

90. I don't think we need a constitutional rewrite

What we need is for people to choose their religious beliefs and keep them personal. Forcing them upon an entire public, especially when the public pays to attend a non-church facility, is tantamount to making them pay admission to attend one person's church.

If someone belongs to a church which insists on subjecting all others to recruitment in every public setting (especially those in which people are paying admission), then they are free to change those religious beliefs at any time - not impose them on others. I don't pay admission to public facilities to attend your church.

[Festivito]

108. Well, for that, you'll need a rewrite.

Because currently people have the rights to express themselves freely, and practice their religion freely. They are stopped at life, liberty, and others' free speech and free practice.

Your forced to pay for church assertion is overstated and won't fly in court. If you want a more private club than the USA, pay for it. If you want the USA club to be more along your personal comfort lines, change the Constitution.

Good luck.

[kevinbgoode]

114. Actually, you are the one who is misinterpreting the Constitution

Using a public facility, which gathers admissions from the general public, to engage in forced proselytizing of a narrowly defined "religious" belief, is attempting to abridge the free speech and free practice of personal religious beliefs of all other members of that public. Whoever selected that radio station was not practicing personal religious beliefs - they were attempting to proselytize those beliefs at the expense of the general public in a setting that is unrelated to any religious belief.

There is nothing overstated about the public use of a facility, constructed with taxpayer dollars, which likely charges admission, to be subjected to the personally selected religious interpretations as broadcasted by radio station whose purpose is to recruit "believers." That not only violates the right of other legal adults to engage in their own personally selected religious beliefs, but attempts to indoctrinate and recruit their children without their consent.

One shouldn't have to explain to you that the very nature of many "religious" beliefs fly in direct opposition to the concept of First Amendment rights (and many state constitutions) which more clearly define the concept of religious freedom. It is the churches which contend they are "private clubs" - not the public facilities open to every citizen. To attempt to impose a singular religious belief through indoctrination in a public setting might speak well to your interpretation of dominionist hegemony - but doesn't protect the rights of other Americans. Your religious choices are PERSONAL - and if you have difficulty practicing them without imposing them on the rest of the public, you are free to change them - not force them on others in a public setting which charges admission and which is not a branch of a church.

Now good luck trying to claim that someone was merely "practicing their religious beliefs" by requiring the broadcast of a religious station in the public pool. That would be one real good argument to use to revoke the licenses of any religious group using the public airwaves.

[Festivito]

118. That's a mess.

Smarmy attempt to say I said what I didn't say, and in a first grader argument of you did, no you did.

Abridging free speech and free practice is not illegal for an individual, you mean denying. Laws should not abridge free speech or free exercise to thereby deny freedom.

But, this is what I see you advocating, that because law funds an area, you then take for yourself the right to abridge that law in the denial of free exercise.

Stopping someone from free exercise is just as bad as exercising to the exclusion of others exercising theirs freely.

[kevinbgoode]

119. Nothing messy about it. It isn't abriding anyone's free speech

since it isn't the INDIVIDUAL engaging in the speech, but the use of the CITY to promote a narrow religious belief at the PUBLIC pool. The tool being used to engage is not the use of free speech, but the use of the public airwaves broadcasting through public equipment during the public's time at a public facility - without permission of said public and without consent of the owners, who are the public.

The individuals right to freedom of speech isn't abridged at all. The individual could talk all he wants about his religion, but the use of a broadcasting facility to FORCE listening to religious indoctrination isn't a free speech issue at all. It is using the city to endorse a narrowly defined religious belief and impose it upon its citizens.

Moreover, there is nothing preventing any individual at that public place from engaging in PERSONAL religious expression.

[Festivito]

123. This feels like a discussion with a CD on autorepeat.

We disagree.

[Goblinmonger]

25. It is a public pool, i.e. owned by the government

and it was playing a radio station that was specifically one religion, and, from the sound of it, was a station that promoted that religion. If you are honestly saying that you can't see how that violates the Lemon Test, then I don't know what more there is to be said. If that radio station was playing at Target, there would be no constitutional argument and you could take your little jab at agnostics/atheists/those that understand the first amendment. But since it was endorsed by the government, it IS a first amendment issue.

[Festivito]

27. Oh oh oh, let me guess you say it's excessive entanglement to have to ask, please change the station

And, I'm not jabbing at agnostics and atheists (not even mentioned). I will jab at dumb agnostics and dumb religious zealots, not for being dumb, rather for trying to control things with their Bush-level intelligence.

If you want to be mad at me, fine. I'm tired of no-religion zealots giving anger fodder to the religious zealots. It has hurt the Democrats greatly, continues to hurt us, and I want it stopped. If you want no religion, good, ask nicely when needed, and don't be greedy when you get your moment of silence that others must endure. If you don't like the first amendment's idealism of sharing, try to change the first amendment to more closely follow creating a wall rather than having the existing first amendment build that wall.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Apples and oranges

The issue of excessive entanglement has nothing to do with my having to ask. It is excessive entanglement because it is the government promoting one religion and not any others. It is because they are playing that religious speech over the loud speaker. THAT makes it entanglement. That I have to ask them to turn it off would make it inconvenient for me to protect my first amendment rights.

From this and other posts on this thread, you seem to think that they could turn it off for a bit and then turn it on and since we would both have had our way, all would be good. That is not the case. They cannot play the religious broadcast in the manner they were for any reason. Perhaps if they had a set amount of time for each religion they might meet the test, but I don't think so.

Ours is a secular government. To call me a "no-religion zealot" puts me in pretty good company with James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc in this matter. Thank you. I would not complain if this were a private company doing this (I may not shop there anymore, but I would clearly not argue it is a first amendment issue). But it is the government and not what the constitution allows. Sorry it pisses you off that we live under a secular government, but we do.

[Festivito]

64. Not fruity at all. You just want things as YOU want them.

You're defining excessive entanglement as what you don't like and therefore you're right. Well, that's in your own mind that you're right. There are other people out here.

One might try to say that the first amendment itself promotes religion by mere mention of the word religion and therefore it negates the first amendment itself for having included those eight letters spaced inside itself due to excessive entanglement. Not one letter of religion should be allowed in the public arena. Bad bad bad.

But, no so. And, silly to both of us. So, where is the line drawn. Mention. Ends at the Constitution. Can free practice occur elsewhere on a public sheet or place.

I think your arguments all require that you are arbiter, because otherwise you when you don't like it you won't "think so." And, you're not in good company there. I did not call you a no-religion zealot.

You decided to take my generalized grouping and apply it to yourself. You do a disservice to that list of fine persons.

[Goblinmonger]

68. But what you seem to avoid

is that this isn't a private person exercising their religion on public property. This is an employee of the government doing this which makes it the government doing this. That is a huge difference.

Your second paragraph is just logically specious. So if someone makes a law that says murder is illegal, the mention of murder by the government makes it somehow OK? You have to say the word to say that it shouldn't be around so that we know what you are talking about. Or should we go the way of Harry Potter and just say that we all have the freedom of that which shall not be named?

I think my side of this argument in this specific instance is pretty well supported by the Lemon Test.

[Festivito]

76. I'm not avoiding that. He still has individual rights as do pool goers.

My second paragraph is fine. You changed to a false analogy, one that does not include a case where the writ itself would contravene itself.

Again, you only support your argument by using expressions such as "I think", "pretty well" and "specific instance" where there is already only one specific instance. Excess words obfuscating lack of substance that should speak for itself.

[Goblinmonger]

82. His individual rights

to broadcast religious teachings as an employee of the state are pretty limited. Yes he could wear a crucifix to work unless there is some reason that would interfere with his lifeguarding. No he cannot put for religion over the governments loud speakers. Teachers can wear crucifixes to school but could not, and should not, put forth their religious leanings to the entire class in the form of mini-sermons throughout the class.

And my apologies for speaking in a tone which indicates that I am offering an opinion into this discussion. I will try to be more absolutist in your fashion from now on.

[Festivito]

96. I think we're agreeing more.

If he were unnecessarily disturbing people's swimming with his loudspeaker, that would be something his supervisor should handle, limiting him. If some people are disturbed because they literally are fine but only chronic complainers, the supervisor also has the right to kick them out of the pool.

My point is that we should not knee-jerk always against religion. Again, if someone wants no religion, that someone deserves his time, but not all the time.

And, let's take this conversation as educational and maybe a little fun. Yes, though, I am harsh. We might even like each other, yet disagree. I really do appreciate it when someone does show me to be wrong. I look forward to it. Learning is fun.

It just seems to take longer and longer between such epiphanies these days.

[kevinbgoode]

86. The person selected a religious belief, and THAT is his/her individual right

to demand that all citizens paying to attend a public pool be subjected to those religious teachings is infringing on them. I don't give a rat's behind if the person using the public pool contends that his/her "religious" beliefs dictate that they must be thrust upon others - if that's the case, he/she is free to change those beliefs. And people do it all the time.

[Festivito]

100. If s/he were burping over the megaphone, you'd ask, please stop.

You don't have to jump to the civil rights charge unless it's really your civil rights and not your interpretation of it being your civil rights.

[kevinbgoode]

113. And it's the use of taxpayer equipment to proselytize at a public pool

knowing fully that it is open to the public. They should already know better. Again, religion is a highly PERSONAL matter.

[Festivito]

115. You're not even trying now. Good night. /nt

[TexasObserver]

70. "and don't be greedy when you get your moment of silence that others must endure"

Pure fucking comedy!!

[Tesha]

37. If you honestly think that this pool is open to any and all religions...

...and isn't just pulling the usual fundagelicall Christian shit,
try having Islamic prayer times announced there. I'll guarantee
you that the problem then won't be "militant agnostics".

Tesha

[Festivito]

46. That's right that they need to ask. And they should.

And, if denied, that is when the lawsuits should begin. Not because some militant agnostics as you put it, decide they should not, ought not, even cannot even ask.

If it's a christian who won't be American enough to share, he needs to be slapped with a suit. (And I don't mean a swim suit.)

If it's an anti-religionist who only wants his own silence and won't be American enough to allow others to play their religion, he needs to be slapped.

As I've said, either that or change the Constitution.

BTW I don't know what kind of guarantee you could offer. I'd be interested in the details unless it's just an empty expression.

[Tesha]

63. You clearly have no idea what the First Anendment means.

And "militant agnostic" was your term, not mine.

Tesha

[Festivito]

67. I used evangelical agnostic and you used militant, and, ... so what?/nt

[kevinbgoode]

92. Evangelical agnostic? Is that some sort of recognized, tax-exempt

denomination with churches designed for fellowship and sharing?

[Festivito]

101. And, you should taste the cookies! /nt

[TexasObserver]

71. Pure Comedy Gold!!!

"If it's an anti-religionist who only wants his own silence and won't be American enough to allow others to play their religion, he needs to be slapped."

Do have any idea how funny this stuff is that you're writing?

You could sell this to Jon Stewart as copy for The Daily Show.

[Festivito]

78. Slapped with a suit, poolside. Good imagery.

I'm having serious fun.

Thanks.

[Arugula Latte]

44. The religious evangelicals are way more vocal, way more pushy, and have way more of a presence

and you know it. Religion is constantly being shoved down our throats.

I guess you're just choosing to be an ass, though.

[Festivito]

49. So, am I to take it that minorities should rule over the majority?

Especially if the majority is WAY MORE VOCAL, MORE PUSHY, AND HAVE MORE PRESENCE?

That's the reason you're giving.

That's a silly reason. Try and get that passed as an amendment. I'd like to see that tried. It would be funny.

Ahh, in this country, majority rules until they take away individual rights. So far in the story given, that has not happened.

Now, with the name calling... you might have something to say. But, then again, a donkey is also called an ass, and is also the symbol for a democrat. Hmmm, maybe that was nice of you. Freudian slip?

[Goblinmonger]

56. "MORE PRESENCE"? Really?

How exactly would they be the minority, then?

Seriously, the fact that you don't even seem to pay attention to what you are saying reduces the credibility of your arguments.

[Festivito]

62. Yes. You goofed. I was talking about the majority not minority.

Back at you with your own credibility, eh?

[Goblinmonger]

65. You missed it

How exactly do atheists/agnostics have more presence when they are such a tiny minority as you say?

[Festivito]

66. Hello!? You keep replacing my word majority with minority. And then complain about minority./nt

[Goblinmonger]

69. You're right; I'm wrong. Sorry. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

81. Evangelicals have the right to believe their silly fairy tales

but they shouldn't impose their dumbass beliefs on people who are just trying to enjoy a swim in a public place.

[Festivito]

89. And you have a right to dumbass beliefs as well.

It's just that you're not entitled to enjoy yours at the expense of others not enjoying theirs.

[Arugula Latte]

116. So I guess you'd be fine with a public pool broadcasting anti-religious songs

so I could enjoy myself then. Okay. I'd like to hear "There's No Invisible Sky Fairy Hovering Over You."

[Festivito]

117. Yup./nt

[donco6]

97. So, we should use public money to indoctrinate people in Christianity?

The OP says there was preaching as well as music.

[Festivito]

102. Let an individual be himself.

Let people be themselves. If someone needs to complain, then, hopefully, the channel can change without making a federal case of it before talking with that person.

[donco6]

103. No. It shouldn't be happening even if I'm not there to complain.

I don't want my tax dollars paying for Christian indoctrination, even when I'm not around.

[Festivito]

105. Then opt for the Constitutional rewrite.

That's there when you're not.

It's just that you enjoying your no religion should not stop someone from enjoying their religion.

[donco6]

107. Uh, no. I didn't say I have no religion.

But this religion should not receive tax dollars to support it's expansion to the detriment of other religions that receive no such preferential treatment.

[Festivito]

112. One has quit using one to express a one that is you but not you.

Those other religions/no-religions have to step up for themselves to expand themselves, should they want to expand.

But, if no one is being abused, let's not have them claim abuse because someone expresses something they just don't like. When it becomes abusive of their rights, then make a federal rights case of it.

[Touchdown]

75. Xtian music makes people pee in the pool

It's a matter of public safety.

[Festivito]

80. You can go to the bathroom during the Xtian time.

You're not guaranteed a swim under the Constitution. However, if the head guy persisted, the one in charge of music, you could go to the media and embarrass that religion and the relentless player.

P well and B well.

[Touchdown]

83. You took me seriously. I thought you were clever.

... guess not.:shrug:

[Festivito]

88. Seriously, P well and B well. /nt

[ieoeja]

84. My uncle was a Racist Black and Evangelical Agnostic. She worked in Military Intelligence.

That uncle used to swim to work in her bicycle with a 400cc engine that had a very brightly colored grey interior.

[Festivito]

104. Was that before or after the sex change?

[The Straight Story]

10. Did it burn your ears?

I listen to rap, rock, christian, etc and like music in general. If they were playing American Indian themed music I would have enjoyed it, or new age, etc.

I just don't get why people get so upset...

[slampoet]

20. Some people have musical memories. I can recall music 30 years after hearing it only once.

THAT is why people get upset.

[The Straight Story]

50. So if you heard any song you took offense to would you want them to change it?

Rap using the N word, buddhist chants, etc and so on. My bus driver in high school pleased everyone by playing a different station each day on way to school.

[slampoet]

110. Exactly. Either that or they don't get my business.

I don't give my money to places that have loud muzak. I come to cafes and public places in order to get away from things, not to be at the whim of the arbitrary taste of employees.


I once went to a cafe were the rule was NOTHING that had lyrics and nothing that wasn't squarely in the genre of Jazz, Folk, or Blues. That Cafe existed for ten years like that. Then one day a new owner came in and played the radio. The place was out of business within 5 months.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Because I don't want the government

endorsing one religion over another? Call me crazy, I guess. Being not a Christian, I don't want to go to a publicly funded pool and have Christianity shoved down my throat since that seems a pretty clear violation of the Lemon Test.

[donco6]

30. Christian music and proselytizing have no place in taxpayer funded avenues.

And I don't know of any Christian music that doesn't proselytize.

[Echo In Light]

11. "We waited for others to complain but nothing." = All American

[TexasObserver]

18. We have to get people off the notion that demanding one's rights is a bad thing.

"Hey, don't you know it's against the law to play religious music at a government facility?!"

See how easy that is?

[Hansel]

91. It's only bad if you are a liberal. Didn't you get the memo? nt

[WolverineDG]

14. Locally, every public place seems to use the Catholic station

not because almost everyone is Catholic but because it's the only station here that plays music that doesn't include cuss words or vulgar language, nor does it have DJs who yell & scream. I suppose someone could whine about it, though, because every once in a while, someone breaks in with a Hail Mary or a message from the Bishop & they broadcast mass at noon. :eyes:

dg

[Lars39]

21. I'd use the argument that *any* music should be banned...it could mask

the sounds of a child in true distress. Pools are noisy places to begin with without the added layer of loud music.

[slampoet]

120. AMEN. There is no reason to have music in public places anyway.

I am MORE likely to do business with a place that doesn't play music and i NEVER give my money to places that broadcast their muzak onto the sidewalk.

[supernova]

23. Sounds like a boneheaded lifeguard

Most of the time, around here I hear mainstream top 40 rock and pop stations. Which is fine.

Personally, it would be great if they didn't play anything so that we could enjoy our own players.

[cbdo2007]

29. Uh oh...what happens if they play a Christian song on a non-Christian station?

God forbid someone listens to something you personally don't believe in.

It's funny cause I've heard numerous times on DU about Christian music playing in a public place but I've never heard anyone complaining about rap or hard rock lyrics being played in public.

[Bill McBlueState]

31. rap or hard rock doesn't necessarily violate the Establishment Clause

It's that simple.

[cbdo2007]

33. Who cares about the Establishment Clause with rappers and

hard rockers singing about oral sex and drugs and stuff. I'd rather my kids hear Christian radio than half of the rest of the stuff out there.

[TexasObserver]

35. If you'd rather your kids listen to Christian radio, buy them radios with headphones.

Why should your preference for that have any effect on the music others have to hear at a government facility?

Do you understand the first amendment?

[Bill McBlueState]

40. if a public pool has to play music

I'm sure they can find songs that aren't about blowjobs, aren't about drugs, and don't illegally advance a religious viewpoint.

...I *think* they have songs like that.

[TexasObserver]

58. "Oh, Mandy! Well you came and you gave without takin'...."

"Cuz YOUUUUUUUUU Light up my life ...."

[NYC Liberal]

53. False dichotomy. How about songs that

neither violate the Constitution NOR have "hard rockers singing about oral sex and drugs and stuff?"

They do exist, you know.

[Goblinmonger]

57. America: Love it or leave it.

Same fallacy.

[Tesha]

36. Find your local ACLU affiliate...

Discuss the issue with them and see if they'll write a letter to
whatever government agency operates the pool.

That's usually all it takes: a letter reminding that agency that
someon's watching.

Tesha

[csziggy]

38. Great Falls, Montana Parks & Recreation Department website

http://www.greatfallsmt.net/people_offices/park_rec/index.htm

The City Contact Us page - scroll down for the telephone number and mailing address of Parks & Recreation: http://www.greatfallsmt.net/people_offices/index.htm

I'd contact the main office, let them know which facility, what day and time you were there and that you were not happy with the choice of station being blasted. Let them know that there were people of various beliefs that were equally annoyed by it. I'd be non-confrontational, just give them the facts and question if this is appropriate for a publicly funded facility.

[Progressive_In_NC]

43. I would have had to leave with my kids if a hard rock or country station is turned on

My six year old and four year old don't need to learn about cussin and drinkin and sleepin around at that age, and my six year old hears every word of every song and asks about it.

But I agree, there shouldn't be any Christian music playing there either. Isn't there a family alternative they could put on? Easy listening or something like that?

[Fumesucker]

55. It wasn't just music..

From the OP: "there were about two very dramatic songs and then a preaching for a few minutes for each loop".

[TexasObserver]

59. Yes, those FACTS are very clear, aren't they?!

Jesus Christ in the morning!

I've read "but what about U-2?" here. As if their music played on Christian stations.

I've read "but what about that terrible rap music?" As if it's either "back that ass up" or nothing on radio.

[Progressive_In_NC]

60. Yeah Evangelism has no place at the pool. That's just wrong.....NT

[KansDem]

73. How do you know this wasn't an impromptu Baptism?

Maybe the music was to accompany a Baptism at the pool and those to-be-Baptized hadn't shown up yet...

[TexasObserver]

74. Per-RAISE HIM!!

Do you want to be washed in the blood of the lamb?


(It's an Baptizin' song)

[Touchdown]

77. A pool is a gym. Allowing Xtian music keeps the Xtians from shooting swimmers

Or haven't you been paying attention to the news lately?

[TommyPaine]

85. I'd be tempted to pop in some death metal myself.

Maybe some classic Slayer or Morbid Angel. For balance, you know. As for Christian music, why not some Bach? That's far more tolerable than the dreadful, self-righteous drivel of today, by a factor of about 10,000,000.

[mamaleah]

95. How about no music?

Christian music offended you and yours, but pop, rap, metal will offend other people too. I certainly do not want my kids listening to half the junk on the radio. Not the little ones at least. Not hard rock. Or rap for that matter. Or Britney pop.

[TommyPaine]

98. Yanni?

Or would that offend everyone, including the universe itself?

[slampoet]

121. Also it is stressful for employees to hear the same 200 songs EVERY DAY on a radio station.

[bertman]

106. How in the world did my generation grow up WITH NO MUSIC at the public pools?

I guess we were deprived.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

111. THANK YOU.

I've only skimmed this thread, and was wondering the exact same thing. If people want music, slap in some earbuds! Pool parties, on the other hand...

[mamaleah]

122. Yes we were clearly deprived and abused!

How did we ever make it this far?