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

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps they or their parents would be interested in such pro-union propaganda such as "Helping your child do well in school" and "Hey mom, I want to be an engineer".

But again, none of this has anything to do with the thread.

I think it does have something to do with this thread.

When asked about why people feel this is a violation of the establishment clause, and not in regards to court cases, but by their own reasoning...why does this picture in a hallway:

...violate these texts:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

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.

...and again, not based on what a judge says...but by their own reasoning, and in their own words, the reason given was that it presents the risk of indoctrination.

So, that led me to believe that people in this thread were opposed to it based on the concept that "it's not right to indoctrinate children to further your own agenda"...and the standard that they set for what constitutes indoctrination was not "Teacher making kids pray", it was not "Teacher teaching creationism in the science class"...it was a picture on a wall.

So I simply pointed out that there are other pictures on the wall that could also be engaging in the immoral practice of indoctrination by the standards others have set.

...this was, in efforts to try to make people realize just how low they've set the bar in terms of what they're claiming constitutes indoctrination.

By claiming that the Jesus picture hanging on the wall to discriminate against non-christians, is like claiming a picture of bacon & eggs on the wall is trying to discriminate against vegetarians.

Or in other words, there are some atheists who are so dead set on trying to "win" against the Christians, that they've allowed themselves to become overly sensitive.

 

[KCfromNC]

Or in other words, there are some atheists who are so dead set on trying to "win" against the Christians, that they've allowed themselves to become overly sensitive.

Overly sensitive to illegal actions by the government, to be specific. You say that like it is a bad thing.

I'll ask again, what's the secular educational purpose of the government singling out the god of Christianity as worthy for display above all others in this school? Everyone seems to dodge this question for some reason.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll ask again, what's the secular educational purpose of the government singling out the god of Christianity as worthy for display above all others in this school? Everyone seems to dodge this question for some reason.

There is no secular educational purpose...

Much like there's no secular educational purpose for many of the decorations that may be found in a hallway of a public building.

If every decoration in the school is held to those standards, then a lot of decorations are going by the wayside.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Overly sensitive to illegal actions by the government, to be specific. You say that like it is a bad thing.

If it's something they feel strongly about for their own personal reasons, then it's not a bad thing. People are allowed to have causes and fight for or against things that are important to them. ...but I want to know what their reasons are.

Far too often, in these types of debates, people default to throwing out court rulings on matters and using that as their justification. Which, by itself, I wouldn't have a problem with...except for the fact that some of the same people using that justification, are the same that say "the court is wrong!" when the topic changed to something else.

There is one poster in this thread (and it's not you, but I'm not going to name the person as to not violate CF rules), who has used this justification in numerous separation of church and state threads... The whole "the court agrees with me, that justifies my stance, I win" logic... yet, back when the gun debates were all the rage, had no problem with taking the "well, I'm right, the court is wrong" stance when discussing the DC vs. Heller ruling.

In a nutshell, they take the position:
"When the court agrees with me, they're the infallible beacon of constitutional wisdom"
"When the court disagrees with me, they're a bunch of activist judges who don't know anything about the constitution"

As to where my stance is, and always has been, that while the court possesses vast knowledge about certain legal matters, they're still fallible human beings capable of bias, and often times conflict with each other.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem lies in the word 'rights'. Where, in the Constitution, is there a right to not see paintings that students may or may not (but let's face it, 99.99% not) take offence to.

Lemon v. Kurtzman stated that it is wrong for public institutions to entangle themselves in religious affairs, and to advance religion without a stated secular cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

These court decisions carry the weight of the US Constitution.

As for a picture of Satan; I'd welcome it. Heck, much of medieval Christian art was centred around Satan. There's few more fascinating figures in world mythology, and Christians don't worship paintings, whether it be of Jesus, Satan or the Pope.

Methinks the parents would ask for it to be removed.

 

[Ringo84]

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.

Congress is a part of the government, and so is a local school board.

 

[Ringo84]

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.

Because some American Christians are the ones with the biggest sense of entitlement. They think that since Christianity has had such a role in American history that it somehow "deserves" special recognition. But we have the First Amendment that keeps our government religiously neutral.

 

[Ringo84]

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.

The government is required to remain religiously neutral. It can't do that when it's showing favoritism towards a religion by placing religious portraits.

 

[Ringo84]

I think it does have something to do with this thread.

When asked about why people feel this is a violation of the establishment clause, and not in regards to court cases, but by their own reasoning...why does this picture in a hallway:

...violate these texts:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

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.

...and again, not based on what a judge says...but by their own reasoning, and in their own words, the reason given was that it presents the risk of indoctrination.

So, that led me to believe that people in this thread were opposed to it based on the concept that "it's not right to indoctrinate children to further your own agenda"...and the standard that they set for what constitutes indoctrination was not "Teacher making kids pray", it was not "Teacher teaching creationism in the science class"...it was a picture on a wall.

So I simply pointed out that there are other pictures on the wall that could also be engaging in the immoral practice of indoctrination by the standards others have set.

...this was, in efforts to try to make people realize just how low they've set the bar in terms of what they're claiming constitutes indoctrination.

By claiming that the Jesus picture hanging on the wall to discriminate against non-christians, is like claiming a picture of bacon & eggs on the wall is trying to discriminate against vegetarians.

Or in other words, there are some atheists who are so dead set on trying to "win" against the Christians, that they've allowed themselves to become overly sensitive.

Religious paraphernalia does not belong on the wall of a government school. Period. If you feel that strongly about a portrait of Jesus, hang one up in your church.

 

[Supreme]

A
Cool! At least you're consistent. I'll give you that. But you know, I could've been fooled by the reaction of some Christians that they don't worship a picture judging by their reaction to its removal. Like others have asked, if it is so inconsequential, why all the hubbub over removing the picture?

Out of interest, why do you seem to think that religious people have to worship something in order to care about it?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Out of interest, why do you seem to think that religious people have to worship something in order to care about it?

Since you want to answer my question with a question, I shall do the same.

Do Christians worship Christ?

 

[muichimotsu]

Religious paraphernalia does not belong on the wall of a government school. Period. If you feel that strongly about a portrait of Jesus, hang one up in your church.

Or in your house, where I've seen it more commonly, esp. in the South.

 

[DaisyDay]

Or in your house, where I've seen it more commonly, esp. in the South.

Or yard