Question of the Day: Are Album Covers Dead?

As many of ye know from The Facebook®, Supadiscomama recently got me a turntable and I have been having a lot of fun with it, rediscovering some music that I haven't listened to in over a decade (by the way, I also hooked up my Tape Deck and have simultaneously begun a cassette-gathering endeavor, but that is a different story....). One thing I have noticed while going through all this vinyl is the vividity of the album cover art. The covers are just so very much bigger than what any of us are used to looking at any more. You take a record like Hendrix's Axis Bold as Love, and look at the 12 X 12 version and it really does seem to lay the CD cover in the shade.

As once again testified by my The Facebook® page, I have long been a huge fan of Album Cover Art anyway, and I have always said one of the reasons that I didn't want to give up on CD's and go totally digital (one of the many, many, many, many reasons), was that I would miss the physical object that also includes the Cover Art. Think about the cover to Nirvana's Nevermind. I mean, good God. That's a work of art right there. But what if the art form really did diminish to an irrevocable point wih the emergence of the CD, and the newest Digital formats are simply the final blow?

Now, I guess I don't have that sensitive of an ear, but in the end I have decided that I cannot REALLY tell that much of a difference between the sound put out by Vinyl and that by a CD or even in the digital format--not enough to justify some of the absolute scorn I see being heaped upon CDs on audio forums. But the album cover art is another issue.

So with all these ruminations out of the way, here is my Question of the Day: What do you guys think of this quote, which I have posted from an audio forum I have been reading around in lately?

LP covers were great. The art aspect of covers was really lost with CDs, which have less than 20% of the space of LPs to work with. The art and originality of the covers was often as important as the music, sometimes more so. Even covers that were "just" photographs, needed great photographs when they were blown up to 12" by 12" size. I have a Best of Mississippi John Hurt gatefold album that has two great photographs inside of Hurt smiling while playing, and gives you a wonderful perspective of his wizened, Buddha-like face and the sheer likability of the man. Something that cannot be achieved with the postage stamp sized photos in CD booklets. Not just sound quality has diminished with CDs, but the whole magic aura surrounding albums from the 60's and 70's. This was a time when music was more than just music, but entered and influenced your life. Album covers were a big part of this. Would the Beatles, and others, have had as big an impact on the world if their music had first been released on CDs rather than LPs (how many would spend time examining the Sgt. Pepper cover if its size was 5" by 5"—get out the magnifying glass)?

Some Thoughts on The Social Network, and a Question of the Day

Not too long ago, we watched The Social Network for the first time, and I was very impressed with it.

My interest in the movie going into it was twofold: on a personal level, as an enthusiastic facebook user who nevertheless maintains heavy skepticism about the ultimate healthiness of social networking; and also on a professional level, as a writing teacher who more and more has been bringing issues surrounding digital culture into the classroom. I had my rhet/comp classes this semester read Time Magazine's writeup of Mark Zuckerberg, and in the process of breaking down the article my interest in how facebook came to be was much heightened.

One interesting thing about the movie, on a rhetorical level, is the irony of the title. Very little time is devoted to facebook, facebook use, or the exploding phenomenon of social networking. The "social network" of the movie, rather, explores the (pretty ruthless) tendrils emanating from Zuckerberg and his activities, both on the Harvard campus and then later, by virtue of Napster co-found Sean Parker, Zuckerberg's "arrival" in silicon valley.

As many have noticed, the Zuckerberg charcter that this movie gives us comes across as quite socially incompetent--if not actually sociopathic. That is, Zuckerberg is represented in the movie as someone who is a genius but who seems to lack the capacity to even imagine the impact of his actions on others, let alone truly care about others. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Zuckeberg in this regard was quite good, as were most all of the supporting cast--especially Justin Timberlake's portrayal of Parker, which I believe deserved every bit of hype it got--really, his performance may have even been underrated.

However. For me, the movie's overt representation of Zuckerberg as a quasi-sociopath raises, I think, very serious questions about the ethics of making movies about public figures in their own time. The Time Magazine writeup pretty much demolished a key premise of the film: more specifically, that Zuckerberg's rise was triggered by having lost, and wanting to impress, a girl that, for all the millions he made, he could never get back (this motif was rendered even more heavy-handed by the fact that the movie explains Sean Parker's Napster achievment on the same terms. Parker has gone on record saying that the movie's portryal of him is almost wholly fictitious). But in truth, as Time's writers made clear, Zuckerberg already had the girl when he started Facebook, and he is still with her today. Further, the magazine writeup went out of its way to demonstrate that Zuckerberg is actually quite socially adept--unless he feels like someone is wasting his time, at which point he tunes them out.

Time's worries about Zuckerberg were mostly aimed at his cavalier posture towards Privacy and Privacy Rights. But that's perhaps another topic, for another post.

What I am interested in asking here is this: How serious of an ethics problem is it, when a movie projects a highly stylized, and for that matter very unflattering, interpretation onto a person--public figure or not--in their own lifetime? The last line of the movie features one of the legal team saying to Zuckerberg, before walking out the door: "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be."

Question of the Day: Thursday, June 17th, 2010

With the contentious nature of the economy and the University, I, as I am sure others, have thought about what my career would be outside of academic life. Surely I must be better at something, right? There must be something else out there that would make me want to get out of bed in the morning?

Well, I don't know if there is. Yet, in light of the road not taken, if you were not in your current profession or trade what would you like your career to be and why?

Of course, answering rick star or movie star to this question would be quite dull so please choose something you could actually see yourself wanting to do.

Question of the Day: Would you go to Grad School?

An interesting piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Thomas Benton and a follow-up to a previous column by the author. The overall argument is that students, unless independently wealth, well connected, well supported, or already supported by a current position, should not pursue a Ph.D. in the Humanities because of institutional constraints e.g. too many students and not enough positions; the academic labor system; nepotism.

After reading the article, do you agree or disagree with the author's conclusions? And, more importantly, if given the opportunity, would you pursue a degree in the humanities?

Question of the Day, or Decade, whichever you prefer?

In light of a discussion with P-Duck over torture, otherwise known to some as enhanced interrogation techniques, when did the virtue of manliness become expressed through the notion of raw power or strength rather than manliness as an intellectual endeavor?

And a second, but related question: if the virtue of manliness means raw power and strength, why do those who advocate for torture call it "enhanced interrogation technique?" Why not take the virtue to its logical extension and call it what it is rather than diminish or mask the concept of torture behind the Orwellian "enhance interrogation technique."

Bonus: Song of the Day. "I Am a Man" by Bo Didley. Where are the Tony Sopranos of yesteryear?

This Week's Second Sign of the Apocalypse: Question of the Day

While Heather Nichols, an unfortunate reporter, interviews UFC's Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, the fighter embraces Nichols and starts to simulate sex with her as she conducts the interview.

Question: why did Nichols continue to conduct the interview?

Question II: why did her producers, camera person, or anyone else fail to intervene?

You can read Nichol's actual answer here but is it convincing?

Monday Morning Movie Flashback (MMMF), and the Question of the Day

Can ye believe True Romance is 16 years old? What a wonderful scene this is, and how redolent with TRS-ness. Which brings us to the Question of the Day:

Is Floyd's rhetoric here appropriate to his Rhetorical Situation?



What about here? Moreover, here, does Gandolfini really "conde-n-scend," or is Floyd just being overly sensitive? Looks like a pretty cordial exchange to Harrogate....

Question of the Day

Why cannot Tiller's family sue Randall Terry, Bill O'Reilly, and others, for publicly slandering the doctor? For that matter, a kind of class action lawsuit filed by multiple doctors is imaginable, is it not?

Doctors after all are surely not public figures in the same way that politicians and pop stars are. Or are they?

Hmmmm. If someone got on television everyday and called Harrogate a murderer of babies, Harrogate would be able to sue that person, wouldn't he? Since Tiller was acting within the law, and thus demonstably not a murderer, why is it out of bounds to file a lawsuit against those who call him and other doctors murderers?

To What Degree do Ideas Have Consequences : Questions of the Day

Yesterday, while in church, Dr. George Tiller was assassinated. At the time, he served as an usher for the congregation. From her position in the choir, Tiller's wife saw the assassination.

Tiller is a very controversial figure in American medicine as he was one of the few doctors in the country to provide late-term abortions for women. You can read some stories about those women here.

Tiller was the target of violent discourse by Bill O'Reilly [see here, here, and here]; by members of Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization [see here, here, and here (warning- graphic images)]; and, of course, profiled on the Nuremberg Files website [see here, and here].

Question One: If the legal standard for judging political discourse is imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio), should the discourse from O'Reilly, Operation Rescue, or on the Nuremberg File's website be protected under the first amendment standard for political discourse or should it be classified under the fighting words classification, if that classification still exists from R.A.V. v. St. Paul, and receive less constitutional protection? Or, is a strategy of counter persuasion against O'Reilly and Operation Rescue a better strategy?

Question Two: Does O'Reilly have any moral obligation to apologize for his discourse about Tiller or does he have any moral responsibility to tone down his discourse? When discussion Tiller's profession, O'Reilly stated:

"No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day."

Does O'Reilly, or Operation Rescue, have blood of their hands as well because of the death of Dr. George Tiller?

The Supreme Court Nomination: Question of the Day

Over at The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen discusses the potential nomination of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, who appears to be one of the frontrunners for Justice David Souter's seat. I know very little, if anything, about her except for her biography. (On a side note, the rhetoric of the frontrunner is a little interesting, as Rosen cites this UPI article, which claims that she is a frontrunner though the evidence that supports the claim is about the role of the Hispanic vote in the 2008 election and not information from the Obama administration. Trial Balloon.)

The most damming passage by Rosen against Sotomayor reads:

Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

This may not be the best article or argument against Sotomayor, especially since it is riddled with anonymous quotes even as the author states that the people with whom he discussed her credentials were not out to grind an axe. However, it does provide an interesting entrance to this conversation.

While Rosen, and Sotomayor's clerks, praise her, the article suggests that she will not be a Justice William Brennan, i.e., she is not the most intellectually powerful and politically liberally motivated. This may mean that she will not be able to build coalitions, define the liberal agenda, or stand up to the movement Conservatives, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice, Scalia, and Justice Thomas.

This does raise the question: with a seat that will not tilt the balance of the Court and full political capital in public opinion and Congress, should Obama try to secure a safe, pragmatic Justice that will be confirmed but may not be a stellar Justice, a Justice that will "represent" important constituencies (women, Hispanics), or the most ideologically driven Justice?

Celebrating (Again) The Creativity of Britney Spears: The Question of the Day

Building upon the illustrious work of Harrogate.(I cannot believe I am writing about this).

With her song, "If you see Amy," Britney Spears*** is following in the footsteps of blues pianist Memphis Slim, the Canadian band April Wine, the pop-punk band Poster Children, James Joyce in Ulysses, and William Shakespeare in Twelfth Night. Here is Slate's take, with all of the references.

Oh well, it could be worse, as James Joyce notes:

If you see kay
Tell him he may
See you in tea
Tell him from me.

But, I ask you Situationers, what other examples of this type of brilliant wit do you admire?

*** Disclaimer: It is highly unlikely that Britney Spears wrote the lyrics to that song or the song itself, but, for a moment, we can live with the illusion.

Question of the Day: Saturday, February 21, 2009

Providing Presence to Domestic Violence or Invading the Privacy of a Recovering Human?

On Friday, the celebrity gossip site TMZ released the police photograph of Rihanna. (You can see the photo here if you wish.)

The photo reveals the bruises on her face after the pop singer was beaten allegedly by Chris Brown. According to TMZ, Brown received a text message from another woman about meeting later in the day and this text message started the argument between Brown and Rihanna. Brown turned himself in to authorities on February 8th.

The question, of course, involves the leak of the photograph. According to the Times (UK), which reproduced the photo in the story, the LAPD are investigating who leaked the photo of Rihanna to the press. When it investigates cases that involve domestic abuse, the LAPD attempts to maintain the confidentially of the victim of domestic abuse cases and does not release information about the person involved in the case.

It is unknown who or why a person leaked the photo of Rihanna though a reasonable guess would be to cash in on the ordeal.

The question: does the release of the photo violate the privacy of Rihanna or does the release of the photo provide more presence to cases of domestic violence, allowing for more women to come forward if they are involved in this case?

I am not asking about whether or not the release of the photo may alter the investigation in the case though I imagine it could. Rather, I am interested in knowing whether or not readers believe that these photos should not be published because Rihanna, celebrities, or women that suffer in these types of cases should be able to go through these cases without the pressure of the public spotlight; or, on the other hand, if this case is transcendent for the way in which it allows people to see what is kept behind closed doors.

Should a right to privacy cover these cases or does publicity bring of these cases bring something greater to the cause?

Question of the Day for 2/14/2009

National Review Online today released its list of the "25 best conservative movies of the last 25 years".

The list, and the brief writeup attending each installment, will be sure to provoke opinions from Situationers and our Readers. Of course, NRO is defining "conservative" according to the very crayon-colored binary that has been part of our political discourse for a while now. But Harrogate, at any rate, is willing to let that slide, and let them have their framing.

And so giving them their framing, Harrogate finds himself agreeing with almost everything on this list: that is, he agrees that almost all the movies listed are thoroughly invested in Traditional Right Wing rhetorics of Free Market worship, US Exceptionalism, and the notion that "Happy Days" was a documentary.

A slight quibble, though, with The Dark Knight, in which Harrogate identifies a lot of political ambivalence. Certainly not a "Liberal" movie, but not a "Conservative" one either. At least, not in a clean-cut way.

And Harrogate quibbles with the "Conservative" moniker for Juno--Although ironically Harrogate's disagreement has nothing to do with the Abortion issue, and everything to do with the movie's totally ridiculous, and predictably "Liberal" vindication of the self-serving, callow Jennifer Garner character.

Question of the Day is Open-Ended: What is your opinion of this list?

The ($3.8 Million) Question of The Day

And is it a good one, with a few sub-questions.

Meet Natalie Dylan, as 22-year-old Women's Studies graduate (BA) who will soon begin an MA in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Natalie Dylan is a unique individual. Natalie is selling her virginity to pay for her MA and a few other things. Well, auctioning it really through the Bunny Ranch's website. The Moonlite Bunny Ranch, of course, is a legal and licensed brothel in Nevada and the "act" will take place there.

So, why Natalie she doing this (--besides paying for Graduate work). At The Daily Beast, Dylan writes:

Like most little girls, I was raised to believe that virginity is a sacred gift a woman should reserve for just the right man. But college taught me that this concept is just a tool to keep the status quo intact. Deflowering is historically oppressive—early European marriages began with a dowry, in which a father would sell his virginal daughter to the man whose family could offer the most agricultural wealth. Dads were basically their daughters’ pimps.

When I learned this, it became apparent to me that idealized virginity is just a tool to keep women in their place. But then I realized something else: if virginity is considered that valuable, what’s to stop me from benefiting from that? It is mine, after all. And the value of my chastity is one level on which men cannot compete with me. I decided to flip the equation, and turn my virginity into something that allows me to gain power and opportunity from men. I took the ancient notion that a woman’s virginity is priceless and used it as a vehicle for capitalism.

The questions:

(1) Is Dylan correct about the nature of virginity or is this just more academic banality or is she just another capitalist, um, I won't say it?

(2) If Dylan is correct, would you encourage your child to do this, knowing that is could make your child financially secure for the rest of her, or his, life?

(3) Is this comparable to pornography, which some scholars, such as Catherine MacKinnon, argue is just another violent and oppressive act against women or does Dylan possess agency and does her auction "transcend" the oppression?

Monday Musical Tribute as Well as a Question of the Day for 1/19: On Loving Songs We Do Not Understand

Harrogate celebrates the Yes song, "Shoot High Aim Low," which comes off of their practically forgotten late-80s record, Big Generator.

But today's Musical Tribute raises a question that Harrogate suspects all Situationers have dealt with. Even those who pay little attention to song lyrics tend to have a handful of much-loved pop songs, the lyrics to which they do not understand. Such has always been the case for Harrogate with "Shoot Hight Aim Low." Clearly some sort of story is being told here, perhaps even two stories being interwoven with one another. But damned if Harrogate can put it together coherently in his mind.

And yet just about every time he listen to this song Harrogate finds it mesmerizing. Yes (no pun intened), part of it is the sheer sound of the Song. Something about "Shoot High Aim Low" proclaims: Take Me Seriously Because I Deserve to Be Taken Seriously. Granted, part of it is the absolutely devastating guitar work that takes place beginning with the 3:50 mark of the video provided below: guitar work that will drop a plummet line into the depths of your ear and cause, as it were, an eargasm. But yet, there is something more.....

So here are the lyrics, followed by a very tight version of this wonderfully enigmatic song.

And it brings Harrogate to his Question of the Day: What songs if any, Situationers, come to mind as Songs Ye Love, but for the LIfe of you have no idea what the hell it is doing?


We hit the blue fields
In the blue sedan we didn't get much further
Just as the sun was rising in the mist
We were all alone we didn't need much more
So fast this expidition
So vast this heavy load
With a touch of luck and a sense of need
Seeing the guns and their faces
We look around the open shore
Waiting for something

Shoot high break low
Aim high shoot low
Break high let go
Shoot high aim low

This was to be our last ride
With the steel guitar and the love you give me
Underneath the skin a feeling, a breakdown
Well we sat for hours on the crimson sand
Exchanges in the currency of humans bought and sold
And the leaders seem to lose control
Shall we lose ourselves for a reason
Shall we burn ourselves for the answer
Have we found the place that we're looking for
Someone shouted "open the door"
Lookout

Shoot high break low
Aim high shoot low
Feeling of imagination
Break high let go
Shoot high aim low
Shoot high aim low
Nothing you can say
Shoot high let go
Takes me by surprise
Shoot high aim low
Who says's there's got to be a reason
Shoot high let go
Who says there's got to be an answer
We were all alone, we didn't need much more
Shoot high aim low
The sun's so hard on this endless highway
Shoot high let go
Shoot high aim low
I've heard the singers, who sing of love
Shoot high let go
In the blue sedan we never got much further
Shoot high aim low

Question of the Day, Thursday January 8th

Please feel free to ignore this question, as I may ignore it. But, to mock NCAA Football yet again...

Question: Who should be the National Champion for College Football?

Question of the Day Part the Second: IS an "Adult Pretending to be a Child Still an Adult"????

Solon's favorite blogger over at TalkLeft, TChris, offered up this fascinating post on Sunday, and Harrogate has had it rolling around in the back quadrant of his teeming brain ever since.

The issue before us, Situationers, is succinctly articulated by TChris

A troubling trend that vexes those of us who believe the police should prevent or solve crimes, not manufacture them, is the detective sitting in a chat room posing as a 15 year old waiting to engage in salacious conversation with an adult. Courts have typically held that an adult who travels to meet the "15 year old" for a sexual encounter can be charged with attempted sexual assault of a minor, even though the defendant never chatted with a minor and no actual minor was ever at risk.

TChris's own position on this issue is compelling:

Whether a mistaken belief about a chatter's age (when the belief is induced by a lying law enforcement officer) should lead to any form of criminal liability is questionable. Putting that question aside, it is reasonable to recognize, as Indiana now does (at least until the legislature closes this "loophole"), that people who don't put a child at risk deserve greater leniency than those who do.

It is of course no surprise that he or Jerlayn would take this stance, as standing up for defendants' and/or criminals' rights (unfortunately for some commenters who tried to morph it into a mouthpiece for a particular brand of feminism) is the true backbone of TalkLeft.

But in addition to the Legal Question, there is also a Rhetorical Situation here that needs to be examined. (Oxymoron, for example, continues to argue that when you are watching a football game on television, that the colored first down line is actually on the field. Of course, Oxymoron also once argued that Styx was a great band, so you have to be careful with Oxymoron.)

So, likely all of us on this Board dislike the idea of Entrapment. But will anyone here straight-up say that detectives should stop trolling for "pedophiles" in this manner? Or conversely, will anyone say straight up that the detective posing as a fifteen year old (what if the detective poses as an 8 year-old) is doing the right thing, indeed, protecting children?

Harrogate will leave the light on for you.

Question of the Day: Tuesday, January 6, 2008

Yesterday, Sasha and Malia Obama started their first day of school in Washington D.C. Before the girls went to school, President-Elect Obama allowed a professional photographer to take pictures of the girls and the family and placed the photos online at Flicker.

Is it better for the Obama family to provide photographs of the family to the public, thereby diminishing the value of photos from the paparazzi even if it diminishes the privacy of the family, or to withhold photos and access from the public to protect the privacy of the family and, especially Sasha and Malia?

Update: Based on the Flicker account and prior practices of the Obama campaign and transition, the Obama family and administration seems to place a great emphasis in controlling the situation, meaning that it is reasonable to assume that there will be more photos like these over the next four to eight years (e.g. maybe graduations, Proms, and formal dances though the Obama family may exclude the pictures of dates to protect their privacy-- i.e. let us never see Levi Johnson again.)

Hat Tip: Ben Smith.

Question of the Day

Monday, January 5th.

It is not as philosophical as the previous though still important.

Earlier in the evening, while Sweet Toddler J created a delicious dinner for me in her kitchen, the two of us were listening to The Beatles' White Album. Overall, it is a very sound album e.g. "While My Guitar Gently Sleeps," (George wrote and recorded with Eric Clapton without the rest of the Beatles); "Back in the USSR" (recorded without Ringo); "Dear Prudence" (about Mia Farrow's sister who was in India at the same time the Beatles were there); "Bungalow Bill" (about someone who while on retreat with the Beatles in India left the compound to go hunting); Blackbird (though Sarah McLaughlin's version in I Am Sam may be better); Happiness is a Warm Gun; Why Don't We Do It In The Road; etc.

However, It may not be their best work as there are too many songs on the two album set that are just terrible. As much as it pains me to say Appetite for Destruction is a much better complete album than the White Album as even "Night Train" is a better song than "Glass Onion." (FYI I hate songs that are self-referential either to the band name or to other songs and "Glass Onion" is the worst song ever for meaningless self-references.)

At best, this should be one album. Maybe a longer album but one nonetheless.

Here is the question: What "great" album would be better if songs were removed from it? Additionally, how could an album be better is other songs, recorded around the same time as the album of choice, were included (e.g. is songs from Radiohead's Amnesiac were added to Kid A--- not that Kid A needs improvement)?

Question of the Day

A couple has two children both of whom suffer medical problems though the exact nature of the problems have not been diagnosed. The reason for the lack of a proper determination of the illness: the parents possess religious beliefs for a religion in which the religious doctrine does not accept that there are mental illnesses or neurological disorders and, further, does not accept certain forms of medicine as reasonable treatments for illnesses.

Instead of drug use to treat mental conditions, the religious doctrine states that healing should be spiritual.

Question: Does the state possess an interest to intervene on behalf of the family to diagnose the medical condition and, if one is found, to provide treatment for the children even if it counters the religious beliefs of the parents?