13 ms·

> No one is stopping you or any other secular organization from building your own organs. It seems weird to complain that churches were the only organizations w

by IanCal 4y ago

> No one is stopping you or any other secular organization from building your own organs. It seems weird to complain that churches were the only organizations willing to spend the money to build and maintain organs. If anything, you should be grateful they invested the resources in the first place. Without these churches, is it not possible the organ would be virtually extinct at this point? I think its reasonable to be both happy these things exist at all, and are available to some for free rather than in extremely expensive private collections, while also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist. We can easily take this to an extreme as an analogy where it would seem more reasonable to you to hear the complaint. The world isn't perfect, and as strong as the desire is to reduce things to a "good" or a "bad" the real world comes with confusing good and bad points that we don't have to average out into a final score.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> While also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist. Can you go into more detail as to these exclusionary practices? All organizations, all things really, are defined by both what they include and what they exclude. Nothing is fully inclusive, else that thing would have no meaning! To be more concrete, How, were churches more exclusionary than other private or civic organizations of their times? When we judge the history of something, we really need to judge it in proper context, including by comparing to the society at large within the same time frame. On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! > The world isn't perfect, and as strong as the desire is to reduce things to a "good" or a "bad" the real world comes with confusing good and bad points that we don't have to average out into a final score. I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs.
- IanCal 4y ago
  I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Even if they were less exclusionary to the group the other commenter identifies as a member of than other things "of the time" that's a relative measure and "better than some other things" isn't really relevant to the point. > On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. > I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs. You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. There does not have to be some primary emotion and weighing these things is at best a waste of time. Accepting a bad side of something does not have to come with ignoring any good sides. This was the mistake you were making and still are. It's not a shocking bit of wisdom, it's just a simple thing to keep in mind when you find yourself drawn into an "is complicated thing X good or bad?" argument.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    > I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. It only takes on a moral character when you consider what is being included or excluded and why. Being "less exclusionary" could be bad, depending on your perspective! I asked you to be more specific, and you chose not to do so, although I can probably guess what you mean, I will instead wait on you to be explicit. > Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. Inclusivity and welcomeness are not the same thing. Christianity is inclusive because it posits every human to be a child of an all-powerful God, having instrinsic worth, and the capacity to be saved and exalted by that God. While conquest definitely played a part in the religion's expansion, it certainly isn't the only factor or even the primary factor. > You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me. For instance, I never said there had to be a primary emotion. I did, however, suggest that there should be one, at least relative to the subject of organs, specifically organ production and access.
irrational 4y ago
Now that so many people are non-religious, I wonder why groups are not being formed to take the place of churches, and have choirs and organ music. Clearly there is a desire for such things. If churches can do it, surely secular non-profits could do the same thing. Gather together one or more times a week to sing and listen to music. Maybe have talks about whatever people want to talk about (hopefully avoiding things like politics so everyone feels welcome). Organizations to replace the community that churches used to provide. It could provide service opportunities, a resource for the poor and needy to get help. Even a place to find a boardgame group. It would need a one word name like church/synagogue/mosque so people could move into an area and ask “Where is the local …”
- vintermann 4y ago
  Maybe people aren't so non-religious as they seem. I see a lot of claims in here that there are no believers in church choirs etc. At best that's wishful thinking, at worst it's maybe even a lie to draw people in. In my experience, most groups that have Christian hymns in their repertoire are closet Christians at least on average. Even in the choirs that sing strictly secular songs, believers are overrepresented just from selection effects, since they sing a lot more. But yes, there are choirs that stick strictly to secular repertoire. There was a "red" choral revival in the 70s, and of course worker and patriotic choirs go a long way back. They got to have something that unites them besides the singing, though. In my town the main secular choirs are the opera choir, which is united by their love of opera and classical music, and the chamber choir, which is 90% doctors and nurses from the local hospital.
- IanCal 4y ago
  > Where is the local … Library. Libraries are often community based, can hold events and talks, are an assumed "no cost" place too. I've lived in cities where you can go and play music on their instruments, use 3d printers, computers, access training, hold community groups, use their sewing machines, watch performances and more. What you need is the funding.
  - irrational 4y ago
    Yes... all the libraries with Pipe Organs and choirs... I see what you are saying, but library isn't it. It needs to be an organization like a church, just non-religious. Libraries and churches have some similarities, but the many differences, and not just religious versus non-religious. I want to see a purely voluntary organization. There is a head of the organization, but that person has a normal full time job, as does everyone else who "works" there. People need to pay dues to pay for the building, the utilities, the pipe organ, etc. but none of that money can go to a person's salary. No mega "churches".

by IanCal 4y ago

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

> While also lamenting the long history of exclusionary practices of the places these things exist. Can you go into more detail as to these exclusionary practices? All organizations, all things really, are defined by both what they include and what they exclude. Nothing is fully inclusive, else that thing would have no meaning! To be more concrete, How, were churches more exclusionary than other private or civic organizations of their times? When we judge the history of something, we really need to judge it in proper context, including by comparing to the society at large within the same time frame. On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! > The world isn't perfect, and as strong as the desire is to reduce things to a "good" or a "bad" the real world comes with confusing good and bad points that we don't have to average out into a final score. I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs.

IanCal 4y ago
I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Even if they were less exclusionary to the group the other commenter identifies as a member of than other things "of the time" that's a relative measure and "better than some other things" isn't really relevant to the point. > On the whole, Christianity can be argued to be one of the most inclusive religions ever. It would have to be, else it couldn't have spread across the world like it did! Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. > I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be conveying, really. It's point is far too banal to be a nugget of wisdom. It's more like a clump of dirt of wisdom! The world isn't perfect? Thanks for the reminder! But we all have a choice as to how we interpret our world, and I'm suggesting that the primary emotion or feeling an organist should have towards churches is one of gratitude, at least while we're staying on topic and talking about organs. You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. There does not have to be some primary emotion and weighing these things is at best a waste of time. Accepting a bad side of something does not have to come with ignoring any good sides. This was the mistake you were making and still are. It's not a shocking bit of wisdom, it's just a simple thing to keep in mind when you find yourself drawn into an "is complicated thing X good or bad?" argument.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. It only takes on a moral character when you consider what is being included or excluded and why. Being "less exclusionary" could be bad, depending on your perspective! I asked you to be more specific, and you chose not to do so, although I can probably guess what you mean, I will instead wait on you to be explicit. > Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. Inclusivity and welcomeness are not the same thing. Christianity is inclusive because it posits every human to be a child of an all-powerful God, having instrinsic worth, and the capacity to be saved and exalted by that God. While conquest definitely played a part in the religion's expansion, it certainly isn't the only factor or even the primary factor. > You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me. For instance, I never said there had to be a primary emotion. I did, however, suggest that there should be one, at least relative to the subject of organs, specifically organ production and access.

irrational 4y ago

Now that so many people are non-religious, I wonder why groups are not being formed to take the place of churches, and have choirs and organ music. Clearly there is a desire for such things. If churches can do it, surely secular non-profits could do the same thing. Gather together one or more times a week to sing and listen to music. Maybe have talks about whatever people want to talk about (hopefully avoiding things like politics so everyone feels welcome). Organizations to replace the community that churches used to provide. It could provide service opportunities, a resource for the poor and needy to get help. Even a place to find a boardgame group. It would need a one word name like church/synagogue/mosque so people could move into an area and ask “Where is the local …”

vintermann 4y ago
Maybe people aren't so non-religious as they seem. I see a lot of claims in here that there are no believers in church choirs etc. At best that's wishful thinking, at worst it's maybe even a lie to draw people in. In my experience, most groups that have Christian hymns in their repertoire are closet Christians at least on average. Even in the choirs that sing strictly secular songs, believers are overrepresented just from selection effects, since they sing a lot more. But yes, there are choirs that stick strictly to secular repertoire. There was a "red" choral revival in the 70s, and of course worker and patriotic choirs go a long way back. They got to have something that unites them besides the singing, though. In my town the main secular choirs are the opera choir, which is united by their love of opera and classical music, and the chamber choir, which is 90% doctors and nurses from the local hospital.
IanCal 4y ago
> Where is the local … Library. Libraries are often community based, can hold events and talks, are an assumed "no cost" place too. I've lived in cities where you can go and play music on their instruments, use 3d printers, computers, access training, hold community groups, use their sewing machines, watch performances and more. What you need is the funding.
- irrational 4y ago
  Yes... all the libraries with Pipe Organs and choirs... I see what you are saying, but library isn't it. It needs to be an organization like a church, just non-religious. Libraries and churches have some similarities, but the many differences, and not just religious versus non-religious. I want to see a purely voluntary organization. There is a head of the organization, but that person has a normal full time job, as does everyone else who "works" there. People need to pay dues to pay for the building, the utilities, the pipe organ, etc. but none of that money can go to a person's salary. No mega "churches".