Jehovah's Witness School Principle Forbids Patriotic Song at Graduation Ceremony

[Brother_Bliss]

School pulls patriotic song at graduation, but Justin Bieber's 'Baby' is OK

By SUSAN EDELMAN

Last Updated: 9:51 AM, June 11, 2012

Posted: 11:41 PM, June 9, 2012

Article Source: The New York Post

A controversial Coney Island principal has pulled the plug on patriotism.

Her refusal to let students sing “God Bless the USA” at their graduation has sparked fireworks at a school filled with proud immigrants.

Greta Hawkins, principal of PS 90, the Edna Cohen School, won’t allow kindergartners to belt out the beloved Lee Greenwood ballad, also known as “Proud to be an American,” at their moving-up ceremony.

Five classes spent months learning the patriotic song, which skyrocketed in popularity after the 9/11 attacks and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

SCHOOLS CHIEF BACKS DECISION TO SWAP 'USA' SONG WITH BIEBER

It was to be the rousing finale of their musical show at the June 20 commencement. The kids, dressed up for their big day, would wave tiny American flags — which, as the lyrics proclaim, “still stand for freedom.”

But Hawkins marched in on a recent rehearsal and ordered a CD playing the anthem to be shut off, staffers said.

She told the teachers to drop the song from the program.

“We don’t want to offend other cultures,” they quoted her as explaining.

The curt edict stunned both staff and parents.

“A lot of people fought to move to America to live freely, so that song should be sung with a whole lot of pride,” said mom Luz Lozada, whose son, Daniel, is in kindergarten.

The song has been sung at previous school events. Last year’s fifth-graders, including another Lozada child, performed it at graduation.

“Everybody applauded and whistled,” the mom said. “They gave it a standing ovation.”

Parents — many immigrants from Pakistan, Mexico and Ecuador — “love it,” Lozada said.

A teacher agreed: “It makes them a little goosebumpy and teary-eyed. I’ve never come across anyone who felt it insulted their culture.”

Department of Education spokeswoman Jessica Scaperotti gave The Post an explanation staffers said they never heard — that Hawkins found the lyrics “too grown up” for 5-year-olds.

The song starts: “If tomorrow all the things were gone, I’d worked for all my life. And I had to start again, with just my children and my wife, I’d thank my lucky stars, to be livin’ here today.”

Scaperotti said the department supports the principal’s decision. “The lyrics are not age-appropriate,” she said.

But Justin Bieber’s flirty song about teen romance, “Baby,” was deemed a fine selection for the show. Hawkins had no problem with 5-year-olds singing lines such as, “Are we an item? Girl, quit playing.”

The other songs: “We’re All Together Again,” popular at Scout campfires; “The World is a Rainbow,” which celebrates diversity; “Shake Your Sillies Out” by Raffi; and “You’ve Got a Friend in Me” from “Toy Story.”

Scaperotti noted PS 90 kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing “America the Beautiful” each morning. Insiders say Hawkins tried to end that tradition a couple years ago but staff objected.

The principal, a Jehovah’s Witness, does not recite the pledge because her religion forbids followers to salute any nation’s flag. Staffers gripe she doesn’t stand in respect during the school-wide ritual.

The song uproar comes amid tensions. Hawkins has been called a tyrant and bully by some staffers.

The DOE reprimanded her in 2010 after teachers complained she called the school “racist” and declared: “I’m black. Your previous principal was white and Jewish. More of us are coming.”

Scaperotti said Hawkins is being targeted by the teachers union and has received hate mail, which is under investigation by the NYPD.

[Brother_Bliss]

Schools Chancellor backs principal's decision to drop 'USA' song, keep Bieber

‘Bless USA’ replaced with Justin Bieber's 'Baby'

By SUSAN EDELMAN, SALLY GOLDENBERG and LEONARD GREENE

Last Updated: 2:27 PM, June 11, 2012

Posted: 1:29 AM, June 11, 2012

They’re proud to be un-American.

City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott is standing behind a Brooklyn principal’s controversial decision to pull the plug on a popular patriotic song that was scheduled to be performed at a kindergarten graduation.

PS 90 Principal Greta Hawkins won’t allow the boys and girls to belt out Lee Greenwood’s ballad “God Bless the USA” because it’s not “age appropriate.”

And Walcott yesterday said that’s fine by him.

“It’s her judgment to make that decision,” Walcott said. “It’s important to reinforce that they start out the morning every day of the school year with the Pledge of Allegiance and ‘America the Beautiful,’ and that, to me, is what this country is about, and they celebrate that, and that’s how we should start our day.

“You have to really wonder about some of the lyrics in the song, so I have to rely on the principal’s judgment along that line.”

Walcott was responding to The Post’s story about Hawkins’ unpopular decision to ditch the ditty after marching in on a rehearsal for the June 20 moving-up ceremony.

Still on the the playlist was Justin Bieber’s “Baby,” a flirty song about teenage romance.

At issue, according to a Department of Education spokeswoman, are lyrics from the tune’s opening verse: “If tomorrow all the things were gone/I’d worked for all my life/And I had to start again/with just my children and my wife.”

They were deemed inappropriate for the 5-year-olds.

Staffers quoted Hawkins as saying, “We don’t want to offend other cultures.”

Parents and teachers angry over Hawkins’ decision yesterday launched a Facebook page demanding her ouster.

“If the DOE has any brains they should remove her tomorrow,’’ seethed one angry anonymous staffer in a posting. “We were the victims of 9/11. It hit New York really hard. That song became famous because of that tragedy. Removing that song is horrific. It’s opening the wound again.”

Hawkins could not be reached for comment.

Article Source: The New York Post

[Dages]

I'd rather sing the God Bless the USA Hahaha

[DonnaR]

Several comments went through my head as I read this. But all I will say is this

"Removing that song is horrific. It’s opening the wound again"

Really? That's drama on the part of the parents. Most of these kids were not even born yet when 9/11 happened.

It reminds me of several years ago when Steven Tyler sang the national anthem before the Indy 500. He did it Steven Tyler style, of course. There were some people here that were totally outraged. Don't mess with people's patiotic music.

[rbrown1205]

My, that is quite a conscience matter. I wonder what scriptural principles are in play here.

[ava]

I am disappointed in what she did.

This is really an abuse of power imo.

The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that witnesses and others have a right to not sing these songs in school. By her decision, she is making witnesses look like fanatics who are pushing our beliefs on others.

There was no need for her to do this. It's not her call imo, to make a decision like this and it may cost her her job.

Yes, we want to stand up for our principles as Witnesses, but we don't want to force/push our standards on our neighbors, workmates, schoolmates. I feel she went too far.

Many witnesses work in schools, attend school assemblies, etc. When the songs are played, the refrain from singing them. That is enough.

[Rajan]

I am with you Ava. personallty we would not participate. But is another thing to impose on others even though many are not JWs and they may not comprehend the meaning of non-participation. Jehovah never compel or force anyone nor any JW do the same with others.

[Ms. Piffle]

The media is notorious for putting the spin on a news item that reflects their attitudes. Is this really an accurate portrayal of our sister? Or has the parents who may have alternative agendas, such as anger fueled by patriotism, and/or they do not like that the principal is a Jehovah Witness, may they have used the media 'to misrepresent and/or attack our sister. No doubt this “news report” will be 'thrown in my face' when school begins this August, as I work in a school district. But, I have no doubt that this is just the tip of the iceberg of negative comments and news reports that we may hear or read about concerning our brothers in the future.

I truly appreciate the reminders found in the 9/1, 2004 watchtower . . .

“False accusations. Although some news reports about Jehovah’s Witnesses are fair, at times the media let themselves be used to broadcast the biased voice of strangers.”

What should we do if we are confronted with accusations spread by the voice of such strangers? We do well to take to heart the counsel of Proverbs 14:15: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” It is unwise to believe everything presented as truth in the media. While we certainly do not distrust all secular information, we do recognize that “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”—1 John 5:19.

[Musky]

Here is an update:

NEW YORK – The controversial elementary school principal that nixed a patriotic anthem in favor of a Justin Bieber song at kindergarten graduation ceremony has decided to not allow the pop star's ballad either, The New York Post reports.

New York City Mayor Bloomberg along with Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott announced at a Monday press conference that PS 90 in Brooklyn will no longer sing Justin Bieber's "Baby" at the school’s June 20 kindergarten graduation ceremony.

School Principal Greta Hawkins raised outrage after The New York Post reported Sunday that she had decided Lee Greenwood’s patriotic “God Bless the USA," was inappropriate for the ceremony, but was allowing the pop star's flirty song about teenage romance.

However, Walcott says Hawkins has decided not to allow the Bieber song either, though he says no city officials pressured her to do so.

“Now as far as Justin Bieber, I understand some of the issues people raised," he said, according to The New York Post. "It’s my understanding that song will not be part of the ‘moving up’ ceremony as well . . . I support our principals along that line.

However, the officials made no indication Hawkins planned on reinstating the Greenwood song, which Hawkins nixed because she reportedly "did not want to offend other cultures."

Her decision raised outrage among both local lawmakers and parents, including Congressman Michael G. Grimm (R,C-S.I/Brooklyn).

“I am outraged that NYC’s Department of Education is standing by the decision of PS 90’s principal to pull the song ‘Proud to be an American’ from the upcoming kindergarten ceremony, for fear of offending other cultures," he said in a statement. “The only thing offensive about any of this is the anti-American message being engrained in our youth. We all should be proud to be American and we should never ever apologize for it!"

Some parents have started a Facebook petition to get the song reinstated at the ceremony.

“A lot of people fought to move to America to live freely, so that song should be sung with a whole lot of pride,” parent Luz Lozada told The New York Post.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/12/mayor-bloomberg-says-elementary-school-will-no-longer-sing-justin-bieber-song/#ixzz1xaulPO64

[onzomanie]

ihate patriotic songs but i find it offensive to see a brother or a sister trying to influence such situation it portrays us very badly in the eyes of people and it only gives them room to start calling us stubborn

[Maris]

Well said vicky, I totally agree. Some exaggerate just to make us look bad. Perhaps more was involved here.

[trottigy]

“A lot of people fought to move to America to live freely, so that song should be sung with a whole lot of pride,” parent Luz Lozada told The New York Post.

Do people not see the hypocrisy in their own words??????? US is free so we should force people to sing about it?? Uh, where's that freedom - if they are being FORCED to sing about it?

[JSellenger]

“A lot of people fought to move to America to live freely, so that song should be sung with a whole lot of pride,” parent Luz Lozada told The New York Post.

Do people not see the hypocrisy in their own words??????? US is free so we should force people to sing about it?? Uh, where's that freedom - if they are being FORCED to sing about it?

I didn't get that from the comments. I think if any students did not want to sing it they would not be forced to. I think that the actions of this principal and the fact that she has made it well known that shes a witness reflect poorly on all of us. I first heard about this from a guy I work with (he likes to bring up anti-JW stuff, the boss is a JW too) and it became a topic at work and it was a very poor witness. The words "crazy" and "cult" were being used.

I just tried to say that this is not representing our organization, that this is just one person, but it didn't go well. He had emailed me some sort of website where people review teachers and principles and this principle had very many unfavorable comments unrelated to this incident. I deleted the email already so I don't still have it or I would post it.

[trottigy]

Jack, maybe this will help.

THEY say we should be FREE, but when this principal exercised her right to be free (and according to the school board - She did have a right to say no to this song and other songs) they jump all over her for exercising her right. Where is the "freeness" there?

[Hallett 82]

Jack, maybe this will help.

THEY say we should be FREE, but when this principal exercised her right to be free (and according to the school board - She did have a right to say no to this song and other songs) they jump all over her for exercising her right. Where is the "freeness" there?

Mans need for laws to cover everything in detail is the real issue under trial here.

Freedom to speak and think is a given. BUT . . that is on an individual level . . the community alarm over this is exactly the same as when we as Witnesses face forced compliance to worldly observances because they are using their collective freedom.

It shows we have reached the end of the line with laws for individual rights V's collective rights. They cannot always be satified while there is Bible TRUTH working amongst worldly 'wisdom'.

Bring on the new system.

[ava]

Jack, maybe this will help.

THEY say we should be FREE, but when this principal exercised her right to be free (and according to the school board - She did have a right to say no to this song and other songs) they jump all over her for exercising her right. Where is the "freeness" there?

I agree with what you are saying. I have learned that the word "free" is tossed around whenever it suits someone's needs/wants.

I still feel though this teacher went too far though.

[Brother_Bliss]

I still feel though this teacher went too far though.

She said it wasn't "age appropriate". Perhaps if she was a principle at a High School, she would allow the song to be sung there. Could be she really believes this and it has nothing to do with her being one of God's people.

On the other hand, “Shrewd is the one that has seen the calamity and proceeds to conceal himself, but the inexperienced have passed along and must suffer the penalty.” (Proverbs 22:3). She should have known this would have happened.

[ava]

I still feel though this teacher went too far though.

She said it wasn't "age appropriate". Perhaps if she was a principle at a High School, she would allow the song to be sung there. Could be she really believes this and it has nothing to do with her being one of God's people.

On the other hand, “Shrewd is the one that has seen the calamity and proceeds to conceal himself, but the inexperienced have passed along and must suffer the penalty.” (Proverbs 22:3). She should have known this would have happened.

This is what was said to the teachers:

"She told the teachers to drop the song from the program.

“We don’t want to offend other cultures,” they quoted her as explaining. "

The Dept of Education claims the sister told them the lyrics were not "age appropriate"

So apparently, this sister has given two reasons why she dropped the song. To her teachers (who work under her) she said it was because she didn't want to offend other cultures, to her boss (the Dept of Education) she claims the lyrics were not age appropriate.

So, the question now is, what is the correct reason she dropped the song?

Either way, I still believe she went too far.

And imo, if she was going to allow originally the Justin Bieber song Baby to be played, then I don't think her decision to drop the song due "age appropriate lyrics" is the correct reason.

[Brother_Bliss]

So apparently, this sister has given two reasons why she dropped the song. To her teachers (who work under her) she said it was because she didn't want to offend other cultures, to her boss (the Dept of Education) she claims the lyrics were not age appropriate.

So, the question now is, what is the correct reason she dropped the song?

Both?

[docwatson1914]

I concur with you Vickie. The vast majority of news articles, tv. etc. portrayJehovah's people as some sort of extremists, that is until we clean up the stadium in LA for conventions or do quick builds in 3 days.

Here are a couple of interesting takes on this.

(Romans 13:1-6) 13 Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves. 3 For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you, then, want to have no fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for YOU people to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of [YOUR] conscience. 6 For that is why YOU are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose.

Points to consider:

While it is true that she is a sister, she is also working in a position as a superior authority, whom we (all those followers of Christ, genuine or not) are to be in subjection to. We don't want to fall into the trap of complaing or taking sides against this sister, when in fact she is acting as a superior authority, a principle of the school district placed in charge over the school: staff and children.

Decisions in any organizational system are not made in a vaccum, most often they come from the very top down through the chain of command. The one implementing it takes the heat, particularly in hot topic issues (of which patriotism is one of the button pushers). It is done to deflect the negative reactions that always come from the real decision makers back onto them.

Here on the left (west) coast, the liberalism of not offending this group or that group has be taken up and implemented in many areas that have to do with high profile issues. Example: The Airf Force just took "God" out of all their experssions so the non-christian, athesists, muslims and whoever else that would be offended wouldn't. Same thing happened a few years ago when all of the military chaplins were told they could no longer use the name "Jesus" lest they offend others. You can see that same mindset spreading throughout all levels of society like a cancer, "lest some be offended". You also see that mentality in the mainstream of the news and demonstrated recently by Mayor Bloomberg himself.

If the top policical administration (mayor's office) that has great influence over other administrations, such as the school board, implement such a "lest we not offend" policy and hypothetically it is passed down to this principle, she should disagree and be fired?

The dominant spirit of the world is to go against whatever one feels is an afront to them, regardless if there is authority of law behind it or not. Like little imature children they holler and kick and scream, often not knowing what the real issues are, only to draw attention to the emotions they are feeling and that everyone else (who is American) should feel. Well I don't feel that way, I guess I'm not a citizen of America.

Finally, when you go to jw.org and read the onging harassment in Russia and surrounding states, especailly reading each detailed event, you find the quasi-legal charge: "harassment for imposing your religious beliefs on others". No different than the situation with this principle who is a sister. It just has had the covers pulled off it in Russia. In this country the covers are still on and take longer to be pulled off. Do you think they will not be?

Just some thoughts.

[pnutts]

I too believe she went too far- as for Justin Bieber - not a fan- and he was raised only about 30 minutes from here. Then again I'm not young anymore-maybe my oldest granddaughter ( 12 ) might like him-however she is in Newfieland - I mean Newfoundland.

[Simon17]

The DOE reprimanded her in 2010 after teachers complained she called the school “racist” and declared: “I’m black. Your previous principal was white and Jewish. More of us are coming.”

She sounds crazy.

[rbrown1205]

I appreciate the scriptural principles cited here. We as Witnesses have to abide by them above all, specifically when they apply to our personal actions.

I also know that Justin Bieber is REALLY POPULAR among the pre-teen set, even down to kindergarten age. No one is asking, though it is pretty obvious to me, who exactly selected that song. It is very likely the kindergarten class children themselves.