Kansas town in uproar over removal of Jesus painting from public middle school

[ThatRobGuy]

One major difference is that sports teams don't condemn people to hell or tell them how they should live their lives.

Walk into a Cleveland sports bar on game day wearing a Steelers shirt and let me know how you're received lol

There's a reason why we have the separation of church and state and not the separation of sports teams and state.

Separation of Church and state isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution...it's based off of some personal writings of Jefferson. From a legal standpoint, the governments prohibited from passing laws in favor of religion, or prohibiting free exercise. However, outside of that, there isn't anything specifically forbidding other religious expression. Thus the reason why the president swears in on a Bible, Congress starts sessions with a prayer, and way back in the day, some of the most non-religious of the founders were perfectly fine with local pastors holding services in city hall buildings.

Further, I don't know of any school that is doing what you just described. Got any examples we can go off?

My high school had logos for all of the local sports teams in the school athletic center. Browns/Indians/Cavs...

Either way, its a clear violation of the rights of any students who don't want to have to look at Jesus all day but can't avoid it because they are required to be in school.

There's no such thing as "A right to not have to look at a picture that I don't want to see". And let's be completely frank here...many of these complaints aren't coming from students themselves, but from activist groups.

Not to mention the double-standards in play for this whole topic from the activists groups. When the Iowa teacher had a small Buddha statue on her desk, and some Christian parents complained about it, activist groups were quick to step up to defend the teacher on the loophole of "Buddhism isn't technically a religion since they don't regard him as a deity", yet, when the Christian teacher called Buddhism stupid, then all of the sudden Buddhism was a religion again, and worth protecting from the "mean Christian teacher"

I feel bad for some Christians as many have been left in the situation where if they do anything other than bow down to other groups, they're viewed as the oppressor.

Christian teacher puts up a Jesus pic: "That Christian Teacher has no right to force their beliefs on anyone else by making them look at at that picture!!!!"

Christian complains about depictions of other religions: "Christians need to learn to tolerate people with other faiths!"

When Christians hang up their pictures and someone else complains, it's viewed as the Christian's fault for forcing their views.
When someone else hangs something up and a Christian complains, it's viewed as the Christian's fault for not being tolerant of the views of others.


Now, I realize that for groups like FFRF, they're intentionally targeting the big fish in the pond in terms of religion...and for the US, that's Christianity. For their organization to survive, it obviously wouldn't make sense for them to target cases of Taoism. Just like a bank investigatory committee is going to look at Citi Bank, and not a local Credit union.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Walk into a Cleveland sports bar on game day wearing a Steelers shirt and let me know how you're received lol

Point taken.

Separation of Church and state isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution...it's based off of some personal writings of Jefferson. From a legal standpoint, the governments prohibited from passing laws in favor of religion, or prohibiting free exercise. However, outside of that, there isn't anything specifically forbidding other religious expression. Thus the reason why the president swears in on a Bible, Congress starts sessions with a prayer, and way back in the day, some of the most non-religious of the founders were perfectly fine with local pastors holding services in city hall buildings.

It is implied and there is enough legal precedent from the last century to know that the government and religion are to remain separate institutions. This isn't something people just made up recently.. It has been a well established part of American law since the foundation of the country. In fact, the separation of church and state is the very reason we even have a country.

My high school had logos for all of the local sports teams in the school athletic center. Browns/Indians/Cavs...

Awesome. Sports teams are not considered religions. No one is being subjected to religious preference in the case of your high school.

There's no such thing as "A right to not have to look at a picture that I don't want to see". And let's be completely frank here...many of these complaints aren't coming from students themselves, but from activist groups.

No but there is a such thing as the right to not be under the rule of a religion you are not a part of. You conveniently ignore that it's not just a picture of just anyone, it is a painting of the central figure of the most dominant religion in the country. Anyone who doesn't want to look at Jesus has the right not to and nobody, especially someone from the government can force anyone to look at a Jesus painting if they don't want to. These students haven't been given that choice in the matter and because they are so young and ignorant of whats actually going on, they don't realize this is a violation of their rights as Americans. That is how religious freedom works.

Not to mention the double-standards in play for this whole topic from the activists groups. When the Iowa teacher had a small Buddha statue on her desk, and some Christian parents complained about it, activist groups were quick to step up to defend the teacher on the loophole of "Buddhism isn't technically a religion since they don't regard him as a deity", yet, when the Christian teacher called Buddhism stupid, then all of the sudden Buddhism was a religion again, and worth protecting from the "mean Christian teacher"

If the FFRF has been selective in the cases they decide to take on then that is on them.. I have no stake in the organization. I just want to see to it that my fellow Americans aren't having their rights trampled upon.

I feel bad for some Christians as many have been left in the situation where if they do anything other than bow down to other groups, they're viewed as the oppressor.

I don't feel the least bit bad for Christians in the US. Up until very recently, they have been untouchable. There are far worse things that far more people have to deal with on a daily basis than what the average Christian is labeling as "persecution" these days.

Christian teacher puts up a Jesus pic: "That Christian Teacher has no right to force their beliefs on anyone else by making them look at at that picture!!!!"

This was the school, not an individual teacher. And they don't have that right.

Christian complains about depictions of other religions: "Christians need to learn to tolerate people with other faiths!"

They do need to learn to tolerate other religions. Satanic statue, anyone?

When Christians hang up their pictures and someone else complains, it's viewed as the Christian's fault for forcing their views.
When someone else hangs something up and a Christian complains, it's viewed as the Christian's fault for not being tolerant of the views of others.

That comes form their privilege they've enjoyed in the US for the past 250 years. They are so not used to playing fair that any and every leveling of the playing field is instantly and vigorously labeled persecution. One person on here even went so far as to call it a "Christian purge".

Now, I realize that for groups like FFRF, they're intentionally targeting the big fish in the pond in terms of religion...and for the US, that's Christianity. For their organization to survive, it obviously wouldn't make sense for them to target cases of Taoism. Just like a bank investigatory committee is going to look at Citi Bank, and not a local Credit union.

No argument here. They need to do something to keep their organization going and with Christians mistakenly thinking they have more rights than the rest of society, they make it pretty easy for the FFRF.

 

[muichimotsu]

Even as an Atheist, I think many other secular folks get a bit over-zealous on these sorts of things. And claiming that it's a constitutional violation is a big stretch at best.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The school board isn't congress, and a picture in a hallway isn't a law...nor does it have anything to do with any form of a legislative process.

Even congress realizes this, which is why they're allowed to open with prayer when they go into a session...because it's not pertaining to the law making process.

The 1st amendment means exactly what it says, congress isn't allowed to make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The 14th amendment extends this policy to the state level, however, in this scenario, we're still not talking about a state legislative branch or lawmaking.

With how overzealous some secularists get, they'd have you believe that the city trash truck driver having a Jesus air freshener hanging from the mirror is a constitutional violation lol.

If it were a case where the Federal (prohibited by the 1st) or the State (prohibited by the 14th) were attempting to make an actual law or policy stating that the school HAD TO put up a picture, or a law stating that students HAD TO embrace Christian value in school, then I would be 100% in agreement that there was a constitutional violation taking place. However, that's not what happened, and people should't pretend that's what's happening.

You're neglecting that this is a taxpayer funded institution, it extends to state level actions. Just because the wording is so specific doesn't mean that is the full intent of the amendment in regards to advocating religious neutrality.

Do you really think it's appropriate for the government to start legislative sessions with a prayer when a moment of silence is sufficient and doesn't imply any favoritism towards religion? People can pray in a moment of silence and there isn't any insinuation that religious prayer is given privileged status over a generic moment of silence.

Respecting an establishment of religion isn't solely done through legislation: it can be done through implicit actions that entail approval. Your example of a city trash worker having a Jesus air freshener seems absurdly specific to begin with. But something as minute as that is not implying that the state favors Christianity over other religions. Now a sheriff putting In God We Trust on the backs of all squad cars might set off some alarms to me.

I'm not such a staunch secularist that I'm iconoclastic or the like, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let something like having a Jesus picture in a public school slide, because that still sends a message of implicit approval of Christianity over other religions when the school shouldn't feel exclusionary like that.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't think it's merely coincidence that FFRF seem to only go after Christians. One can still be bigoted even if one is in the minority, and it seems to be the case with FFRF.

As for the school, I'd like to have seen them troll FFRF and refuse to take it down.

Refuse something for petty reasons and get legal fees? That's not immature at all...

FFRF targets Christians because they make themselves targets: pretty sure you can find other examples in their history besides Christianity, but it being the majority religion means it will be the likely offender with establishment clause issues.

 

[muichimotsu]

Do Americans really believe that painting, is what Jesus looks like? To me, the painting, it is tacky. It's inappropriate, in the school, of course. The school should focus more, on educating its students. Not acting dramatic, over a painting.

Education in regards to constitutional issues of favoritism towards religion should be part of basic knowledge with an educational institution of a public nature. The school isn't acting dramatic, unless you're talking about some insistence that it's something to pursue a fruitless lawsuit over.

 

[muichimotsu]

I wouldn't think to speak in any absolute concerning the courts.

SCOTUS back in 2010 ruled that a white cross, erected as a war memorial and sitting on national parkland in the Mojave Desert, did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
This was after an atheist who was also a park employee brought a suit to have it removed.

I'd hope something of that nature in a SCOTUS decision would give background and legal support to a Christian law firm who might seek to stop FFRF from their assaults in America.

I seem to recall that Mojave desert issue might've been settled by someone buying the plot of land and making it private so there wasn't an issue of government promotion or the like. it's like the roadside crosses you see, those aren't a violation of establishment because they're put in by private individuals in spite of being on taxpayer funded roads.

 

[fizzygiraffe]

Yes, we have those crosses on the roadside here. A neighbor of mine has a cross dedicated to him at an intersection that long ago needed a red light rather than a stop sign. After their deaths the state decided it was time.


High court rules cross doesn't violate separation of church and state
"It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society."

 

[muichimotsu]

Walk into a Cleveland sports bar on game day wearing a Steelers shirt and let me know how you're received lol



Separation of Church and state isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution...it's based off of some personal writings of Jefferson. From a legal standpoint, the governments prohibited from passing laws in favor of religion, or prohibiting free exercise. However, outside of that, there isn't anything specifically forbidding other religious expression. Thus the reason why the president swears in on a Bible, Congress starts sessions with a prayer, and way back in the day, some of the most non-religious of the founders were perfectly fine with local pastors holding services in city hall buildings.



My high school had logos for all of the local sports teams in the school athletic center. Browns/Indians/Cavs...



There's no such thing as "A right to not have to look at a picture that I don't want to see". And let's be completely frank here...many of these complaints aren't coming from students themselves, but from activist groups.

Not to mention the double-standards in play for this whole topic from the activists groups. When the Iowa teacher had a small Buddha statue on her desk, and some Christian parents complained about it, activist groups were quick to step up to defend the teacher on the loophole of "Buddhism isn't technically a religion since they don't regard him as a deity", yet, when the Christian teacher called Buddhism stupid, then all of the sudden Buddhism was a religion again, and worth protecting from the "mean Christian teacher"

I feel bad for some Christians as many have been left in the situation where if they do anything other than bow down to other groups, they're viewed as the oppressor.

Christian teacher puts up a Jesus pic: "That Christian Teacher has no right to force their beliefs on anyone else by making them look at at that picture!!!!"

Christian complains about depictions of other religions: "Christians need to learn to tolerate people with other faiths!"

When Christians hang up their pictures and someone else complains, it's viewed as the Christian's fault for forcing their views.
When someone else hangs something up and a Christian complains, it's viewed as the Christian's fault for not being tolerant of the views of others.


Now, I realize that for groups like FFRF, they're intentionally targeting the big fish in the pond in terms of religion...and for the US, that's Christianity. For their organization to survive, it obviously wouldn't make sense for them to target cases of Taoism. Just like a bank investigatory committee is going to look at Citi Bank, and not a local Credit union.

Lack of mention in the constitution doesn't mean the principle isn't implicit through various parts of the constitution through explicit statements: like no religious test being required for public office near the end of the constitution proper.

A teacher having a small Buddha statue is comparable to having a cross necklace. Neither is considered a violation of the establishment clause because it is personal to them, like a student wearing a cross necklace or the like.

Christians being in a dominant position of demographic numbers suggests that they're taking their status a bit too lightly and disregard others as if they just have to tolerate such a thing, even though it is intolerable in being borderline fascist. When you start insisting that your religion gets special treatment because of being in a majority, that's no longer religious freedom, it's privilege.

One isn't required to swear an oath at all, affirmation has the same legal weight. And even if everyone swore an oath, you don't have to do it on a bible. I'd just as soon do it on a D&D player's handbook: the value is not the book used, but the weight of the statement you make in terms of legal precedent. Prayer as a tradition is not sufficient justification for it to continue in lieu of alternatives that are neutral to religion overall, such as a moment of silence.

The issue isn't looking at a Jesus picture, but its presence in a public school, entailing an unconstitutional favored treatment of Christianity over other religions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're neglecting that this is a taxpayer funded institution, it extends to state level actions. Just because the wording is so specific doesn't mean that is the full intent of the amendment in regards to advocating religious neutrality.

...yeah, but that whole "it's a taxpayer funded thing" only holds so much water. We've seen those arguments all the time.

"I don't want my tax dollars paying for a war"
"I don't want my tax dollars going toward same sex rights"
"I don't want my tax dollars going to prop up public sector unions"
"I don't want my tax dollars going toward religion XYZ"

If the government were confined to do business in such a way that not a single taxpayer objected to what they were doing, then they wouldn't ever do anything...because no matter which policy we're talking about, you'll always find at least some people, who pay taxes, who disagree with it.

Do you really think it's appropriate for the government to start legislative sessions with a prayer when a moment of silence is sufficient and doesn't imply any favoritism towards religion?

That's not up to me, I don't work there. I was simply pointing out that there's almost no consistency in terms of how this "separation" seems to be enforced. If congress isn't allowed to respect an establishment of religion (one religion over another; or religion over non-religion), wouldn't their opening prayer be a much bigger violation than a Jesus pic in a school hallway???

Why is it that the FFRF consumes it's time with Jesus Pictures in schools and nativity scenes in front of post offices?...rather than going after this?

(Obama swearing in on a Bible)

...or this

(Joe Biden performing VP duties while clearly showing favoritism toward Catholicism)


It almost seems as if groups like the FFRF get their jollies from "putting the fundamentalist types in their place"...either that, or the other explanation is that showing religious favoritism (in their eyes) is somehow worsened if the person doing so is conservative vs. if they were liberal.

Now a sheriff putting In God We Trust on the backs of all squad cars might set off some alarms to me.

It's on our money...why aren't they going after the fed?

because that still sends a message of implicit approval of Christianity over other religions when the school shouldn't feel exclusionary like that.

See my pictures above...our President & VP have both publicly shown their favoritism (or preference) of a particular faith while acting in an official elected capacity, how is that not 10x more of an infraction than a middle school having a Jesus picture in the hallway (that 90% of the student probably never even notice or care about)

Why is this okay?

...but a nativity scene draws protests and negative attention from activist groups?


Like I said earlier...I probably wouldn't care as much if there wasn't so much inconsistency.

If groups like the FFRF truly want 100% separation of church and state, then they need to go after all of it, instead of just cherry picking things that they know will rile up fundamentalist Christians.

If they really want to be consistent in their position, then...in addition to protesting nativity scenes and Jesus pictures, they need to get out and start protesting he following things:

NYC Muslim Day Parade: It's glorifying one particular set of religious beliefs, and it done on roads that are paid for by public funding

Holi (Hindu) Festivals taking place on public property

Menorahs on public property in Jewish Communities

...and they should be lobbying to remove religion from the "protected classes" list in terms of discrimination laws. Religion is, after all, a personal choice and a private matter and government has no business giving it any sort of special treatment.

If the government is saying that I can tell a person to leave my store if they're promoting non-religious values that I don't agree with, but that I'm not allowed to do so if a person is professing religious values I don't agree with...then that's a problem and the FFRF needs to go after them immediately!

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[muichimotsu]

...yeah, but that whole "it's a taxpayer funded thing" only holds so much water. We've seen those arguments all the time.

"I don't want my tax dollars paying for a war"
"I don't want my tax dollars going toward same sex rights"
"I don't want my tax dollars going to prop up public sector unions"
"I don't want my tax dollars going toward religion XYZ"

If the government were confined to do business in such a way that not a single taxpayer objected to what they were doing, then they wouldn't ever do anything...because no matter which policy we're talking about, you'll always find at least some people, who pay taxes, who disagree with it.



That's not up to me, I don't work there. I was simply pointing out that there's almost no consistency in terms of how this "separation" seems to be enforced. If congress isn't allowed to respect an establishment of religion (one religion over another; or religion over non-religion), wouldn't their opening prayer be a much bigger violation than a Jesus pic in a school hallway???

Why is it that the FFRF consumes it's time with Jesus Pictures in schools and nativity scenes in front of post offices?...rather than going after this?

View attachment 162480
(Obama swearing in on a Bible)

...or this
View attachment 162481
(Joe Biden performing VP duties while clearly showing favoritism toward Catholicism)


It almost seems as if groups like the FFRF get their jollies from "putting the fundamentalist types in their place"...either that, or the other explanation is that showing religious favoritism (in their eyes) is somehow worsened if the person doing so is conservative vs. if they were liberal.



It's on our money...why aren't they going after the fed?



See my pictures above...our President & VP have both publicly shown their favoritism (or preference) of a particular faith while acting in an official elected capacity, how is that not 10x more of an infraction than a middle school having a Jesus picture in the hallway (that 90% of the student probably never even notice or care about)

Why is this okay?
View attachment 162482

...but a nativity scene draws protests and negative attention from activist groups?


Like I said earlier...I probably wouldn't care as much if there wasn't so much inconsistency.

If groups like the FFRF truly want 100% separation of church and state, then they need to go after all of it, instead of just cherry picking things that they know will rile up fundamentalist Christians.

If they really want to be consistent in their position, then...in addition to protesting nativity scenes and Jesus pictures, they need to get out and start protesting he following things:

NYC Muslim Day Parade: It's glorifying one particular set of religious beliefs, and it done on roads that are paid for by public funding

Holi (Hindu) Festivals taking place on public property

Menorahs on public property in Jewish Communities

...and they should be lobbying to remove religion from the "protected classes" list in terms of discrimination laws. Religion is, after all, a personal choice and a private matter and government has no business giving it any sort of special treatment.

If the government is saying that I can tell a person to leave my store if they're promoting non-religious values that I don't agree with, but that I'm not allowed to do so if a person is professing religious values I don't agree with...then that's a problem and the FFRF needs to go after them immediately!

Wouldn't you agree?

Objection in a personal sense is different from appealing to an implicit or explicit constitutional principle. Saying you don't want taxes to support abortion is not the same as saying you want to government to use taxes in a way that is neutral to religion, because abortion and such isn't remotely covered in the constitution, while religious establishment and respect thereof is.

The opening prayer is more obviously a violation, but the Supreme Court hasn't ever really been consistent on such things, esp. when we have a mixed composition to begin with, about 5 of them leaning more towards a traditionalist reading in many respects, even saying that One Nation Under God or the like is merely civil religion, which is a sad attempt to deflect away from the obvious issues that come up with such a thing in a religiously diverse country such as America.

Religious favoritism is not something you need to be partisan about in your opposition to it. Liberals are no less prone to those issues, even if they manifest differently.

Swearing on a bible is an option, so it's not technically an issue: if it was absolutely required, I think even Christians might have some issue with that in the same way that making the bible the official state book of TN caused some opposition from Christians in that it was borderline sacrilege.

American secularism is not 100% church/state separation, unlike France's laicite, which is much more strict in regards to keeping the two institutions distinct and not interacting. Allowing religious beliefs and the like to influence legislation in terms of individual voters is one thing, but there should be adequate secular justification alongside that legislation or it becomes pure theocracy.

Keeping religion a protected class in regards to nondiscrimination issues and the like is not contradictory to advocating government neutrality to religion. One is a matter of policy, the other is a matter of personal liberty. If someone wants to believe in various nonsensical religious tenets, that's their business, but insisting it be a matter of public policy and be given special treatment is not the same as saying that their being Christian should not be an issue in their being providing services of a public accommodation nature.

Also religion in terms of of nondiscrimination technically applies to nonreligious individuals, even atheists, because the issue is more descriptive than prescriptive. If the beliefs are regarding religion in some sense, it is religious, even if the person belongs to no religion. That's how free exercise is reasonably interpreted to not be prejudiced against the nonreligious.

 

[bhsmte]

The government's attitude seems to be hit or miss on the topic.

In some cases, they rule that a Jesus picture at a post office is a violation...

Yet, they still allow opening prayer in congress sessions...you'd think, in terms of the letter of the law of the first amendment, congress (the actual legislative body mentioned in the amendment) opening up their session with prayer would be a bigger violation than a Jesus picture arbitrarily hung up in a government building somewhere based on the standards that some are setting for what's considered a violation.

Congress is a bit different than a public school, but I understand your point.

 

[Strathos]

You can still honor what you choose in you're personal life, correct?

Exactly. My faith isn't so weak that it collapses without symbols of it plastered all over public places. It honestly doesn't matter to me if there's a picture of Christ in a school, a cross near a highway, or an inscription of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. I don't mind them being there, but I'm not demanding that they have to be there, and it doesn't bother me if they're not.

Personally I think both sides are making too big of a deal out of this kind of thing. Christians aren't being persecuted if we can't have our symbols put up everyone, and atheists aren't being persecuted if there are Christian symbols in certain places. Everyone needs to get over it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Correct, it was something Jefferson wrote in a letter to a baptist minister, but nowhere is such an idea codified.

...and the first amendment places limitations in both directions. Government can't pass any laws respecting an establishment of religion, they also can't limit free exercise of religion.

However, as I noted in an earlier post, a middle school isn't a legislative body, and a picture isn't a law...so I'm not sure why some of my fellow secularists feel that this is a violation.

So it'd be OK for a local school to require students to pray to Allah 5 times a day? They aren't a legislative body and praying isn't a law, so no constitutional issue, right?

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please review the CF rules before posting again.

Please remember to treat others how you would like to be treated -- addressing the content of the post and not the character of the poster.

Remember to stay on topic!

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Supreme]

Refuse something for petty reasons and get legal fees? That's not immature at all...

FFRF targets Christians because they make themselves targets: pretty sure you can find other examples in their history besides Christianity, but it being the majority religion means it will be the likely offender with establishment clause issues.

Refusing something for petty reasons and incurring legal fees over a petty organisation making a petty request seems like a less than ideal way to end this, but at least you are exchanging pettiness for pettiness.

 

[cow451]

Why not just include pictures of other religious figures? Like a picture of Muham--- never mind.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. My faith isn't so weak that it collapses without symbols of it plastered all over public places. It honestly doesn't matter to me if there's a picture of Christ in a school, a cross near a highway, or an inscription of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. I don't mind them being there, but I'm not demanding that they have to be there, and it doesn't bother me if they're not.

Personally I think both sides are making too big of a deal out of this kind of thing. Christians aren't being persecuted if we can't have our symbols put up everyone, and atheists aren't being persecuted if there are Christian symbols in certain places. Everyone needs to get over it.

I could really care less personally, whether a public building has the ten commandments or a school, has a picture of Jesus somewhere.

What I can understand though, are the reasons, why some do care about this and feel public entities should not have symbols that promote certain religions.

I also understand why church's should be able to define their own theology, even including those like Westboro baptist, even though I disagree with it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Congress is a bit different than a public school, but I understand your point.

If anything, I would expect congress to be held to a higher standard in that regard over a public school...

They're the ones who are actually in the legislative capacity mentioned in the 1st amendment.

 

[bhsmte]

If anything, I would expect congress to be held to a higher standard in that regard over a public school...

They're the ones who are actually in the legislative capacity mentioned in the 1st amendment.

With congress, we are talking about adults and politicians for that matter.

In schools, we are talking about children, which are much more prone to being influenced.

I would imagine, if someone in congress brought this topic up in a legal action, the prayer would be dropped. But, since we are dealing with politicians, it could be, they would think of the reaction they would get for doing so.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So it'd be OK for a local school to require students to pray to Allah 5 times a day? They aren't a legislative body and praying isn't a law, so no constitutional issue, right?

No...much like a school requiring students to pray to the Christian God is NOT ok. Everyone has freedom of expression in this country (from the government, and each other). However, this isn't about forced participation in a religious activity, this is about a picture hanging up in a hallway.

Now, if you were talking about a picture of Allah hanging in a school hallway, then my answer would be exactly the same as it was about the Jesus picture...that answer being, that it's not a violation in terms of the constitution. It might violate a school policy...but not the first amendment.