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

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You yourself said that court decisions aren't absolute or final. Supreme Court has made decisions in the past that they negated with future ones. This notion that the ten commandments being government speech excuses it from establishment clause scrutiny is specious at best. It's still showing favoritism towards a religious group, even if it's broader than just Christianity. If they're going to be consistent, say that they must have other religious laws alongside the Decalogue or don't allow them at all. Government speech is no more absolutely protected in regards to establishment clause issues than other issues.

Correct, court rulings can negate each other...I simply provided that one because it was a comparable example (Object on/in city property with no associated legislative actions).

The idea of the ruling was the government isn't confined to being even handed in terms of expression, but only in terms of restrictions they're imposing (IE: laws).

To go with the one example Alito mentioned (you don't have allow an anti-war monument to be put up next to a Veterans memorial on public property)...however, the moment make a restriction that says "group XYZ isn't allowed to protest here, everyone else is", then you have a 1st (or 14th) amendment violation. Given the fact that it was a 9-0 ruling, the left leaning justices were on board with the notion as well. (at least in that particular circumstance).


The other aspect of this that I find particularly interesting is that so many left-leaning folks in the US often fight the hardest for this concept of "separation of Church and state", and often make the claim that the lack of separation is the reason why we haven't gotten more progressive from a social standpoint in terms of certain issues...and the religious symbolism is often what they spend most of their time targeting.

Yet, a country they aspire to be like (in terms of social progressiveness), the UK, has no such separation.
- there's one particular Church endorsed by the state
- nearly a third of their primary schools put on a "Christmas story" play
- nearly half put up nativity scenes

In fact even the EU parliament puts up this display:
Crib-EU-Parliament2.jpg

mario-borghezio-cheche-noel-PE%20(1).jpg


Possible that they have a better grasp on the difference between expression & legislation than the progressives in the US?

They put up, with out hesitation, all of the things that progressives here seem to think are the boogeyman...yet, they have all of the kinds of legislative aspects that progressives here seem to yearn for.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,096.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Correct, court rulings can negate each other...I simply provided that one because it was a comparable example (Object on/in city property with no associated legislative actions).

Do you have any which specifically address religious iconography from one specific religion being displayed in public schools?

I posted one and the ruling was far different than you're claiming it would be.

Possible that they have a better grasp on the difference between expression & legislation than the progressives in the US?

Other countries with different legal systems have different legal systems. Film at 11.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do you have any which specifically address religious iconography from one specific religion being displayed in public schools?

I posted one and the ruling was far different than you're claiming it would be.

Like I said before, conflicting rulings aren't unheard of. I even mentioned before that courts can be conflicted on the matter of religious iconography on public property.

They might rule a Jesus picture in a schools is a violation, then a few months later, a different court might rule that a 10 commandments display in a public park is fine.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,096.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Like I said before, conflicting rulings aren't unheard of. I even mentioned before that courts can be conflicted on the matter of religious iconography on public property.

They might rule a Jesus picture in a schools is a violation, then a few months later, a different court might rule that a 10 commandments display in a public park is fine.

I'll take that as a no, you don't have any case law showing that this kind of display in a public school is OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Like I said before, conflicting rulings aren't unheard of. I even mentioned before that courts can be conflicted on the matter of religious iconography on public property.

They might rule a Jesus picture in a schools is a violation, then a few months later, a different court might rule that a 10 commandments display in a public park is fine.

Except the court really isn't that conflicted. The Pleasant Grove case you cite isn't stating they can have a Ten Commandments monument and no other -- what they stated is that, under strict scrutiny, a city can create requirements for displays. In the Pleasant Grove case, they found the city had created two solid criteria to be met for a display to be exhibited: that the group requesting to erect a display must be located in their city and that the display must be related to the city's history.

In this particular case, the group attempting to place the monument was located in Salt Lake -- they weren't members of the community. Additionally, not only were they not in Pleasant Grove but they were founded in 1975 -- so there was no historical value to their display, either. This is the reason the Supreme Court ruled against the display, despite the religious liberty implications.

The fact remains, if a group with a history of being located in Pleasant Grove petitions to put up a different religious display, then the city will be required to accept that display. The 10 Commandments is allowed because it is part of a display (I believe it is about 15 total items on display) and other religious displays, of religions actually located in the city, are not being denied. With strict scrutiny being applied (per the Supreme Court), they likely would be unable to deny almost any display from any religious group that is located in the city.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'll take that as a no, you don't have any case law showing that this kind of display in a public school is OK.

So are you suggesting that there's something fundamentally different about a picture of Jesus (religious iconography) hanging in a school hallway (public property) vs. A 10-commandments display (religious iconography) being displayed in a city park (public property) ?

If speaking about this in general terms, they're essentially the same thing...an item that can be associated to a religion on property that is funded by the public.

Here's another kicker with this whole thing...in some cases they are giving a pass to certain religions.
From the Anti-Defamation League:
The Supreme Court has found that a Chanukah menorah is a symbol with both secular and religious meanings, and its display on public property is permissible on the grounds that the particular symbols used and the context of the display are vitally important to determine whether the decorations are permissible. As one court has put it: "The context in which a symbol appears is critical because it may determine what viewers fairly understand to be the purpose of the display, and may negate any message of endorsement that the religious symbol might otherwise evoke.

Is that simply the loophole Christians should try to exploit then to get around some of these rules?

Would if fly if the school simply stated that their hanging of the picture was as a form of respect to him in the same way that the Ebionites did (or even as some modern day Jews do)?, where they teach that he was just a man, but had some earthly teachings that they happened to respect and revere. At that point, their depiction becomes nothing more than a nod to a man/leader who they felt had some important teachings (much like many people give a nod to teachers/leaders like MLK)

...at that point, it'd be almost impossible to prove their intent one way or the other.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The 10 Commandments is allowed because it is part of a display (I believe it is about 15 total items on display) and other religious displays, of religions actually located in the city, are not being denied.

In the case of the schools, are any other religious displays being denied? For example, are the people running the school prohibiting students and staff from hanging up another religious symbol next to the Jesus pic?
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
So are you suggesting that there's something fundamentally different about a picture of Jesus (religious iconography) hanging in a school hallway (public property) vs. A 10-commandments display (religious iconography) being displayed in a city park (public property) ?

If speaking about this in general terms, they're essentially the same thing...an item that can be associated to a religion on property that is funded by the public.

Here's another kicker with this whole thing...in some cases they are giving a pass to certain religions.
From the Anti-Defamation League:
The Supreme Court has found that a Chanukah menorah is a symbol with both secular and religious meanings, and its display on public property is permissible on the grounds that the particular symbols used and the context of the display are vitally important to determine whether the decorations are permissible. As one court has put it: "The context in which a symbol appears is critical because it may determine what viewers fairly understand to be the purpose of the display, and may negate any message of endorsement that the religious symbol might otherwise evoke.

Is that simply the loophole Christians should try to exploit then to get around some of these rules?

Would if fly if the school simply stated that their hanging of the picture was as a form of respect to him in the same way that the Ebionites did (or even as some modern day Jews do)?, where they teach that he was just a man, but had some earthly teachings that they happened to respect and revere. At that point, their depiction becomes nothing more than a nod to a man/leader who they felt had some important teachings (much like many people give a nod to teachers/leaders like MLK)

...at that point, it'd be almost impossible to prove their intent one way or the other.


Exploiting legal loopholes suggests you don't have a leg to stand on, though. If you want to make such an argument, the issue remains that even apart from legislation, the government directly sponsoring a specific religious icon or the like constitutes unnecessary entanglement, which is a more implicit violation of the establishment clause, rather than making legislation of any form on any civil level.
 
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

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Correct, court rulings can negate each other...I simply provided that one because it was a comparable example (Object on/in city property with no associated legislative actions).

The idea of the ruling was the government isn't confined to being even handed in terms of expression, but only in terms of restrictions they're imposing (IE: laws).

To go with the one example Alito mentioned (you don't have allow an anti-war monument to be put up next to a Veterans memorial on public property)...however, the moment make a restriction that says "group XYZ isn't allowed to protest here, everyone else is", then you have a 1st (or 14th) amendment violation. Given the fact that it was a 9-0 ruling, the left leaning justices were on board with the notion as well. (at least in that particular circumstance).


The other aspect of this that I find particularly interesting is that so many left-leaning folks in the US often fight the hardest for this concept of "separation of Church and state", and often make the claim that the lack of separation is the reason why we haven't gotten more progressive from a social standpoint in terms of certain issues...and the religious symbolism is often what they spend most of their time targeting.

Yet, a country they aspire to be like (in terms of social progressiveness), the UK, has no such separation.
- there's one particular Church endorsed by the state
- nearly a third of their primary schools put on a "Christmas story" play
- nearly half put up nativity scenes

In fact even the EU parliament puts up this display:
Crib-EU-Parliament2.jpg

mario-borghezio-cheche-noel-PE%20(1).jpg


Possible that they have a better grasp on the difference between expression & legislation than the progressives in the US?

They put up, with out hesitation, all of the things that progressives here seem to think are the boogeyman...yet, they have all of the kinds of legislative aspects that progressives here seem to yearn for.
Comparing apples and oranges: even if there was similar policy, it doesn't follow that cultural regard for religion will be the same in each country.
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
In the case of the schools, are any other religious displays being denied? For example, are the people running the school prohibiting students and staff from hanging up another religious symbol next to the Jesus pic?

I would guess the school has a policy of not allowing permanent pictures or other displays in the hallways, as most schools do -- though I don't know for sure. I'm guessing however, if they had policies for other religious displays could be hung, they would not have removed the picture of Christ. The fact that they removed the picture rather than trying to fight would seem to be evidence that they weren't allowing other religious displays, otherwise there would have been no reason to remove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Comparing apples and oranges: even if there was similar policy, it doesn't follow that cultural regard for religion will be the same in each country.

...but the cultural regard for religion is my point.

In the US, we're told by many on the left that the reason that we had laws prohibiting abortion, same sex marriage, marijuana use, etc... is because we don't adequately enforce the concept of "separation of church and state", and when going on their conquest to attempt to remedy that, they immediately turn their attention to crosses, Jesus pics, and nativity scenes. By giving the EU & UK examples, I was just merely pointing out that spending time focusing on inanimate objects might be a waste of their time since the UK-style of legislation and social policy seems to be exactly what they want, and the UK doesn't have any sort of separation...and they still allow nativity plays in schools, religious iconography on public property, etc...

The claim many in this thread are making is that they have a fear that a Picture in a hallway is a slippery slope into indoctrination. In all actuality, the main "offenders" in terms of indoctrination are parents. Nearly 70% of people end up being part of the same religion as their parents.

If secular activists are so worried about Children being coerced into religion, they should know that the childrens' parents are the ones who are doing that, not a picture on a wall.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Exploiting legal loopholes suggests you don't have a leg to stand on, though. If you want to make such an argument, the issue remains that even apart from legislation, the government directly sponsoring a specific religious icon or the like constitutes unnecessary entanglement, which is a more implicit violation of the establishment clause, rather than making legislation of any form on any civil level.

So given your stance on that, am I correct in assuming that you disagree with the stance of the Jewish Anti Defamation League on that one? Because, I think you and I can both agree, claiming that a Menorah holds a secular value is a bit of a stretch on their part.
 
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

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,803
25,694
LA
✟551,661.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If it were a picture of this:
default17-300x271.jpg


Or this:

mohammedkitsch2.jpg


It would probably still be up there.
Why would either of those pictures ever be put up in a public school?

The fact that they aren't I think proves the special place Christians have given themselves in our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Fox
Upvote 0

Crowns&Laurels

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
2,769
751
✟6,832.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The fact that they aren't I think proves the special place Christians have given themselves in our society.

Everyone who lived in the US at it's founding was a Christian. 78% of people in America claim to be Christian.

What rightfully justifies taking down every single iconic symbol of Christianity?
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,803
25,694
LA
✟551,661.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Everyone who lived in the US at it's founding was a Christian.
3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was definitely not a Christian. He did not believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ or the concept of original sin. He even went as far as to rewrite the bible taking out the supernatural and mystical claims attributed to Jesus including the resurrection. Not something most Christians would be willing to do.

2nd President, John Adams was a Unitarian and didn't believe in the Holy Trinity and rejected the divinity of Christ which, by most mainstream Christian standards is not a Christian thing to do.

I don't think I need to tell you too much about Thomas Paine and his views of organized religions like Christianity, if you know anything about the guy. Here's a great quote of his:

The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God.
I can't say much about the general population of the country at the time as I don't know what they might have believed in but it is obvious that some of the most influential founders of this country were certainly not Christians or at the very least had very unorthodox views of Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Fox
Upvote 0

Crowns&Laurels

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
2,769
751
✟6,832.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson was definitely not a Christian. He did not believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ or the concept of original sin. He even went as far as to rewrite the bible taking out the supernatural and mystical claims attributed to Jesus including the resurrection. Not something most Christians would be willing to do.

2nd President, John Adams was a Unitarian and didn't believe in the Holy Trinity and rejected the divinity of Christ which, by most mainstream Christian standards is not a Christian thing to do.

I don't think I need to tell you too much about Thomas Paine and his views of organized religions like Christianity, if you know anything about the guy. Here's a great quote of his:

The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God.
I can't say much about the general population of the country at the time as I don't know what they might have believed in but it is obvious that some of the most influential founders of this country were certainly not Christians or at the very least had very unorthodox views of Christianity.


They all had the same general worldview. If they weren't Deist Christians, they were Freemason Christians, but none of them were anything of what an atheist is today, even if they label as 'deists'.

Thomas Jefferson declared that the state cannot grant rights to practice religion and that it's an immutable right of the religious. He meant the same for churches trying to tell other churches they can or cannot assemble, as the legislation was Christian.
That's what "separation of church and state" is. That's right, it doesn't even exist in the way you all try to put it today.

How.. unChristian of him? :scratch:

Atheists and liberals had their run in trying to revision the American founding as it pertains to Christianity. What's so necessary about feeling the need to do so anyway? Why not be honest and admit that the ideologies of late are alien to American history?
 
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

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,803
25,694
LA
✟551,661.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
They all had the same general worldview. If they weren't Deist Christians, they were Freemason Christians, but none of them were anything of what an atheist is today, even if they label as 'deists'.

Thomas Jefferson declared that the state cannot grant rights to practice religion and that it's an immutable right of the religious. He meant the same for churches trying to tell other churches they can or cannot assemble, as the legislation was Christian.
That's what "separation of church and state" is. That's right, it doesn't even exist in the way you all try to put it today.

How.. unChristian of him? :scratch:

Atheists and liberals had their run in trying to revision the American founding as it pertains to Christianity. What's so necessary about feeling the need to do so anyway? Why not be honest and admit that the ideologies of late are alien to American history?
You said everyone who lived at the founding was Christian. I gave three examples of the founders themselves that were definitely not Christians, in their own words even. You can't be a Christian if you change what the bible says and doubt the divinity of Christ, the existence of the holy trinity or the virgin birth.

That is all that was needed to invalidate your bogus claim that everyone was a Christian at the founding of America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0