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

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

...but the purpose of the amendment isn't about protecting Children vs. Adults...it's about protecting citizens from the government passing religious-based legislation.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
...but the purpose of the amendment isn't about protecting Children vs. Adults...it's about protecting citizens from the government passing religious-based legislation.

Sure, but it still requires someone to challenge the status quo.

Politicians are leery about how they will be perceived, parents of school children, tend to view things a bit differently.

And the courts have ruled, it is not just about passing religiously based legislation, it is also about the promotion of any specific religion in public environments, because people have the right, to be free of religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

I guess I'm not following. Are you saying that there's some difference in how the 14th amendment incorporates the establishment clause compared to the free exercise clause? I was pretty sure that earlier you were saying that the 1st amendment restrictions on states and federal lawmakers don't apply to other government employees, but now you seem to be saying something different.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I guess I'm not following. Are you saying that there's some difference in how the 14th amendment incorporates the establishment clause compared to the free exercise clause? I was pretty sure that earlier you were saying that the 1st amendment restrictions on states and federal lawmakers don't apply to other government employees, but now you seem to be saying something different.

I was saying that this line:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

...doesn't apply to other non-legislative government employees...primarily, because those other employees aren't even in a position to make laws. Which is why I gave the examples of how Joe Biden and Obama have both publicly demonstrated allegiance to a particular religion while acting in the capacity of their duties in the executive branch.

If people want to interpret that amendment into meaning "Anybody working for the government in any way, shape, or form can not express religious preferences while acting in their official capacity", then how is it wrong for a school to have a Jesus picture, but okay for Obama & Biden to reference their Christianity while giving official speeches?

The 14th amendment (this is the part of it I assume you're referring to):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...still wouldn't really apply in this situation because a school hanging up a picture doesn't equate to state legislation (or rule making).

If a person working for the government was making a rule stating that you "had to" pray in class, then one could invoke the "State Actor" laws that are in place:

A state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms

However, as noted a few previous times, hanging a picture, or simply providing one's opinions isn't a legislative action, and it isn't an action that's attempting to dictate the actions of others...therefore, isn't a violation.

IE: It's okay for the P & VP to espouse their Christian Views during a speech
It's okay to hang up a Jesus picture
etc....

...because those aren't actions that are making an attempt to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was saying that this line:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

...doesn't apply to other non-legislative government employees...primarily, because those other employees aren't even in a position to make laws. Which is why I gave the examples of how Joe Biden and Obama have both publicly demonstrated allegiance to a particular religion while acting in the capacity of their duties in the executive branch.

If people want to interpret that amendment into meaning "Anybody working for the government in any way, shape, or form can not express religious preferences while acting in their official capacity", then how is it wrong for a school to have a Jesus picture, but okay for Obama & Biden to reference their Christianity while giving official speeches?
A picture hanging in a public place is not the expression of faith by an individual.
The 14th amendment (this is the part of it I assume you're referring to):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...still wouldn't really apply in this situation because a school hanging up a picture doesn't equate to state legislation (or rule making).
The school is funded, in part by the state and is regulated by the state. Therefore it is representing the state.
If a person working for the government was making a rule stating that you "had to" pray in class, then one could invoke the "State Actor" laws that are in place:

A state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms

However, as noted a few previous times, hanging a picture, or simply providing one's opinions isn't a legislative action, and it isn't an action that's attempting to dictate the actions of others...therefore, isn't a violation.

IE: It's okay for the P & VP to espouse their Christian Views during a speech
It's okay to hang up a Jesus picture
etc....

...because those aren't actions that are making an attempt to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do.

See my response above. Same issue, same thing.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A picture hanging in a public place is not the expression of faith by an individual.

...nor is it a legislative action.

The school is funded, in part by the state and is regulated by the state. Therefore it is representing the state.

So is the office of President & VP...

"I don't want Obama swearing in on a Bible"
"I don't want Biden giving official speeches with Catholic Ashes on his head"

They're acting in an official capacity, funded by the state, regulated by the state, therefore, they are representing the state.

Are my hypothetical statements reasonable?

See my response above. Same issue, same thing.

It's not the same issue, the key distinction that has to be made is legislative actions vs. non-legislative actions.

A school hanging up a picture, or Joe Biden giving a speech with the ashes on his head aren't violations because neither is a legislative action aimed at the citizens. If the school were forcing kids to lay hands on the picture, or Biden was forcing other citizens to also participate in Ash Wednesday...then it'd be a different story.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
...nor is it a legislative action.



So is the President & VP...

"I don't want Obama swearing in on a Bible"
"I don't want Biden giving official speeches with Catholic Ashes on his head"

They're acting in an official capacity, funded by the state, regulated by the state, therefore, they are representing the state.

Are my hypothetical statements reasonable?



It's not the same issue, the key distinction that has to be made is legislative actions vs. non-legislative actions.

In your world then, it would be ok for a public school principle, to hang hundreds of religious paintings throughout the school, say prayers over the PA system everyday to start school and since no legislation was passed, this would be all peachy?
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...nor is it a legislative action.
Public schools are regulated by the state under state legislation.
So is the President & VP...
Elected officials are paid salaries. They are allowed freedom of expression of their religious beliefs.
"I don't want Obama swearing in on a Bible"
"I don't want Biden giving official speeches with Catholic Ashes on his head"
I have never said anything as silly as these statements.
They're acting in an official capacity, funded by the state, regulated by the state, therefore, they are representing the state.
They can, like any other elected official, be sworn in in using any religious or non-religious book or none at all. That choice is personal and is not an official position. Any elected official can attend worship services they choose, just like any governmental employee or other American citizen.
Are my hypothetical statements reasonable?
No

It's not the same issue, the key distinction that has to be made is legislative actions vs. non-legislative actions.
Apples continue to not be oranges.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In your world then, it would be ok for a public school principle, to hang hundreds of religious paintings throughout the school, say prayers over the PA system everyday to start school and since no legislation was passed, this would be all peachy?

Technically speaking from a constitutional perspective, yes.

In fact, many schools did use to do that.

In modern times, I'd imagine most schools would have school policies that would prevent this, and I'm sure the principle would get fired after enough complaints lol.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟31,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Is it OK for public schools to attempt to inculcate children with a particular religion? If it is OK, to what degree? Which strategies for achieving this goal are acceptable and which are not? How do we measure the acceptability of a strategy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Public schools are regulated by the state under state legislation.
Elected officials are paid salaries. They are allowed freedom of expression of their religious beliefs. I have never said anything as silly as these statements.
Apples continue to not be oranges.

Those were my hypothetical statements about the prez and VP, I realize you didn't say that...

However, if you can make the claim "Public schools are regulated by the government and publicly funded, therefore I don't want a Jesus picture hanging up because it shows religious favoritism"...how is that any less ridiculous than my hypothetical statement of ...

"Joe Biden is giving an official speech in the capacity of VP, a position that is publicly funded and regulated...I don't want him publicly showing a preference toward Catholicism"

120222_EX_bidenAsh.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg




...and you're making a claim that I'm comparing apples & oranges.
I'm not the one conflating a Jesus picture in a hallway with some state conspiracy to legislate religion.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is it OK for public schools to attempt to inculcate children with a particular religion? If it is OK, to what degree? Which strategies for achieving this goal are acceptable and which are not? How do we measure the acceptability of a strategy?

I don't think any form of indoctrination from the school is acceptable.

The real question is...does a Jesus picture hanging in a hallway (that's been there for decades) really constitute indoctrination? Or is it simply a matter of the FFRF looking for something to nitpick.
 
Upvote 0

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟31,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Those were my hypothetical statements about the prez and VP, I realize you didn't say that...

However, if you can make the claim "Public schools are regulated by the government and publicly funded, therefore I don't want a Jesus picture hanging up because it shows religious favoritism"...how is that any less ridiculous than my hypothetical statement of ...

"Joe Biden is giving an official speech in the capacity of VP, a position that is publicly funded and regulated...I don't want him publicly showing a preference toward Catholicism"

120222_EX_bidenAsh.jpg.CROP.article250-medium.jpg




...and you're making a claim that I'm comparing apples & oranges.
I'm not the one conflating a Jesus picture in a hallway with some state conspiracy to legislate religion.

Is there a difference between being religious and showing religious favoritism?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Is there a difference between being religious and showing religious favoritism?

Sure.

If you're just religious in your private life and keep it private, that's different than hanging up a picture, publicly swearing in on a Christian Bible, or giving an official speech with ashes on your forehead.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟31,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think any form of indoctrination from the school is acceptable.

The real question is...does a Jesus picture hanging in a hallway (that's been there for decades) really constitute indoctrination? Or is it simply a matter of the FFRF looking for something to nitpick.

It stands as a constant reference to a particular religion. Now, whether it is sufficient in and of itself to fully indoctrinate students is a valid question. Is that your standard? Is the constant exposure of school children to a reference to a particular religion OK as long as its effectiveness at fully indoctrinating them is questionable? If we stop at a portrait of a particular deity, prophet or icon, are we definitely OK? Can we go a little farther than that and still be OK? How far?
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,692
LA
✟551,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Those were my hypothetical statements about the prez and VP, I realize you didn't say that...

However, if you can make the claim "Public schools are regulated by the government and publicly funded, therefore I don't want a Jesus picture hanging up because it shows religious favoritism"...how is that any less ridiculous than my hypothetical statement of ...

"Joe Biden is giving an official speech in the capacity of VP, a position that is publicly funded and regulated...I don't want him publicly showing a preference toward Catholicism"
Are there any school children being forced to listen and watch Joe Biden?
 
Upvote 0

Glass*Soul

Senior Veteran
May 14, 2005
6,394
927
✟31,902.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sure.

If you're just religious in your private life and keep it private, that's different than hanging up a picture, publicly swearing in on a Christian Bible, or giving an official speech with ashes on your forehead.

How about those whose religion requires a particular garb at all times? Can a Sikh, an Hasidic Jew, or a Mennonite woman who holds public office make an official speech while wearing their accustomed religious garb? Is that merely being religious or promoting religion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Isn't a tenet of Islam that it's impossible to see Allah? So how could you have a picture of him?
Right! That would be indoctrination from the Christian perspective, and blasphemy from the Islamic.
 
Upvote 0