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

[cow451]

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"

What "I" want isn't the issue. I personally don't care. His "showing a preference" is not a problem constitutionally. A lot of people "want" other people to do things differently. We are free to want, not free to get.

...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.

Your hyperbole is noted.

When local governmental ignorance and indifference to the rights of non-Christians and the actions that are unconstitutional are pointed out, it is not an allegation of "some state conspiracy".

There have been ample legal rulings to uphold the interpretation that limits religious symbols, pictures, monuments, etc. in public facilities.

And, apples remain non-oranges.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Nice try: being concerned with constitutional violations is not petty: trying to maintain an outdated and irrelevant status quo for the sake of pleasing antiquated viewpoints is. A request for a school to maintain neutrality towards religion is not petty, a school demanding that it continue to give special treatment to the majority religion smacks of pettiness

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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?

If the standard being set by some others in this thread for what defines promotion of religion
(that standard being; anyone who works in even the most minute public capacity can't even have the slightest association with any visual object that could be construed as religious iconography or religious association while performing said public duties or even on public property)

...then yes, the examples you just provided would be considered promotion of a religious faith based on the standard others have set in this thread.

To me personally, I wouldn't consider that a promotion of religion...but then again, I also don't view a piece of paper with a drawing on it hanging on a wall as promotion either.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes it does.

How so?

It's a piece of paper with a drawing on it...

Of "white Jesus"...if I were to hang a picture of Barry Gibb on the wall, it'd look pretty much the same.

There were pictures of "Smoky the Bear" in my elementary school...not once I was I ever indoctrinated into believing that there was such a thing as a talking bear who put out forest fires.

 

[Armoured]

FFRF is registered as an educational organization with the IRS.

I'd hope a Christian civil rights group would get involved to stop this pursuit of Christian persecution. FFRF target only Christianity. They're anti-Christian. There has to be something that can be done to a tax exempt anti-Constitutional communist fascist organization violating the civil rights of one protected class of persons.

When public schools start putting up pictures of Mohamed, expect FFRF to get involved. iirc, they've already been involved with non-Christian cases. They seem to disproportionately "target" Christians because it is disproportionately Christians who try to foist their religion on others in public setting.

 

[Supreme]

Nice try: being concerned with constitutional violations is not petty: trying to maintain an outdated and irrelevant status quo for the sake of pleasing antiquated viewpoints is. A request for a school to maintain neutrality towards religion is not petty, a school demanding that it continue to give special treatment to the majority religion smacks of pettiness

The point here, and why their actions *are* petty, is that hanging a painting in a corridor doesn't constitute special treatment.

 

[Blank Stair]

When public schools start putting up pictures of Mohamed, expect FFRF to get involved. iirc, they've already been involved with non-Christian cases. They seem to disproportionately "target" Christians because it is disproportionately Christians who try to foist their religion on others in public setting.

Name one.
A case that FFRF has been involved in that is not one set against Christians.

There's not a lot to say about the rest of your remarks.

 

[Blank Stair]

The point here, and why their actions *are* petty, is that hanging a painting in a corridor doesn't constitute special treatment.

No, it isn't. Nor is it an example that government has created a theocracy in a government funded , that's taxpayer funded, public school.

FFRF hopes to deliver the message under threat that peoples religion stops when they walk into a public education center.
That's not true of course. And it can't be enforced. But that is also why FFRF, communist as is ACLU, go after the school administrators . Sadly , people who aren't all that educated themselves in matters of the law and particularly the Constitution.
That's why I think legal defense groups like Liberty Institute are retained by those FFRF targets.

When a student is threatened for reading their Bible on their own time at recess, somethings wrong. When a teacher, not the smartest thing to do, leaves a message on a parents answering machine outlining why she took a students Bible when they were reading it at recess, saying, that kind of thing isn't tolerated in her class room, and it was actually at recess and the students own time, something is wrong.
When students graduating high school are told they have to submit their graduation speeches for approval prior to the day to insure no mention of God is there, and it is the Christian God they're talking about, something is wrong with those school officials making that rule.
The first wrong was they allowed themselves to be terrorized by an atheist humanist group and the ACLU. The first right thing was that the student afforded the highest honor at that graduation thanked God when it was his turn to make his speech. Civil disobedience!
Meanwhile, there's a video of a Muslim student stepping out of the rows at his graduation and kneeling in his prayers toward Mecca. Right there on the football field for all to see. Funny how no school authorities stopped him.

Even at work people are threatened for being Christian.
And the atheists, the atheist humanists, those who are just opposed to Christianity itself, will reach as far as concession allows them. Until all of America is free of Christianity. Not one church with a cross on its steeple. That symbol offends you know. (Only the damned darling, only the damned). Not one Bible read in public. It offends. Not one thing pertaining to Christianity. Wait and see if they don't reach that far.

America was grounded in religious freedom principles. An inalienable right. Communist atheists are opposed.

One day we'll read they messed with the wrong school. The wrong job place. The wrong Christian citizen. Ton's of money, loads of lawyers, and nothing but time.
Even Satan can quote scripture. He and his minions must have forgotten. In the Bible, they lose! When God is for us no one can defeat us. All in God's time. Meanwhile, I watch how those who don't believe God is there freak out when they encounter people who disagree.

They spend thousands in attorney fees to fight God? No, to fight people having the right to freely believe in a God that isn't there.
"It's not there! STOP THAT! We'll sue! "

 

[Armoured]

There's not a lot to say about the rest of your remarks.

Because they're obviously correct.

 

[Blank Stair]

Are they.

 

[Armoured]

Are they.

Yep. That's why you can't argue against them. You know I'm correct.

 

[muichimotsu]

The point here, and why their actions *are* petty, is that hanging a painting in a corridor doesn't constitute special treatment.

It does when it's done purely out of tradition and not in a sense of being accommodating to all religions, esp. if we're doing so in an educational environment. Having a picture of Jesus in your house, which I've seen plenty being in the South, or other religious memorabilia, is one thing, and I don't have an issue with it. Even a parochial school could do it. But a public school is a particular context and various actions can entail such a thing, esp. if done under the auspice of the school administrators.

What else would you think this is meant to entail besides that the school borderline idolizes Jesus in some sense and expects the students to implicitly approve of it, Christian or not?

Special treatment, by a basic definition, is giving one group something another doesn't get and you don't feel a need to justify it, or if you do, it's by precedent and tradition, not any substantial argument

 

[bhsmte]

The point here, and why their actions *are* petty, is that hanging a painting in a corridor doesn't constitute special treatment.

What would be the purpose, of hanging a painting of Jesus, in a public school, where kids could be of different religions and or no religion?

 

[Maren]

To clear up a couple of things:

Prayers to open Congress are allowed because they are non-denominational, so no religion is getting preferential treatment. Additionally, some communities have prayers to open meetings and are allowed to do so because they allow all religions to participate. This is much the same idea as allowing religious icons on government property -- it is allowed so long as all religions are allowed to be represented. Communities have been ordered to cease having prayers (or religious icons) when it has been found that they do not offer equal access or keep them non-denominational. Additionally, there is no requirement for various Congress persons or staffers to attend the prayer -- in fact, if you watch these invocations on C-Span, you will see that the chamber is typically almost completely empty.

As was mentioned, the land the Mojave Memorial Cross sat on was sold to a veterans group, so it is no longer on government land or being maintained by tax dollars.

Government workers are generally allowed to show their personal religious beliefs, so long as they are not disruptive. This includes being sworn in on a religious book of their choosing -- the idea of the religious book is the idea that the person's oath is being bound by his religious beliefs. As such, it makes no sense for the person to be sworn in on a religious book (s)he does not believe in. Additionally, since any faith's book may be used (depending on the faith or the person being sworn in), no religion is being "promoted". This also is what allows Congressmen to belong to the Congressional Prayer Caucus.

In the case of the ashes on the forehead of VP Biden on Ash Wednesday, the ashes are a personal religious belief and so allowed. If VP Biden had spoken (as the VP) on why the US needs to convert to Catholicism, or that all Americans need to be marked with a cross of ashes on Ash Wednesday, at that point he would be be considered to be violating the First Amendment.

Schools have been given tighter restrictions, seemingly in large part from the idea that children tend to be impressionable. Because of this, teachers are more heavily restricted in expressing their personal religious beliefs. For example, a teacher typically may not have a personal religious book on their desk during class time. OTOH, students religious rights are largely protected -- the limits are if their religious activities are disruptive. Additionally, unlike Congress, students are required to attend classes (unlike Congress and their prayers).

As for graduation speeches, there are some gray areas and it gets complicated. On the one hand, it is a school sponsored/promoted event and so is required to no promote religion. This includes speeches given by students, as they are representing the school -- and typically their graduating class -- so schools do have a right to approve the speeches and to remove religious references. OTOH, students are allowed to express their religious beliefs and, since there is no education to be disrupted, they have a fair amount of leeway to express those beliefs. So, for example, if the students wish to pray, they can do so, even publicly. What makes it such a gray area is the fact the school cannot sponsor those religious demonstrations -- so a prayer cannot be added to the program, as that is considered the school sponsoring the prayer, even it if is student led. I suspect if Graduation Ceremonies continue to be an issue, that the gray areas will be replaced by new legal precedent. I also suspect that precedent will largely go against religious displays, if it is pushed.

Now, I realize some disagree with these ideas and limitations, and obviously it could be debated what the proper guidelines should be. However, this is what the courts have decided and, as a general rule, these are the current law in the US.

 

[Supreme]

What would be the purpose, of hanging a painting of Jesus, in a public school, where kids could be of different religions and or no religion?

The purpose of art. And please don't be so quick to assume that kids are so easily offended- children of different faiths are not some gullible airheads who become extremely angry when exposed to a religious painting.

 

[cow451]

The purpose of art. And please don't be so quick to assume that kids are so easily offended- children of different faiths are not some gullible airheads who become extremely angry when exposed to a religious painting.

That was not the purpose here. It was not placed there because it was art. An art show/exhibit is entirely different.

 

[Armoured]

The purpose of art. And please don't be so quick to assume that kids are so easily offended- children of different faiths are not some gullible airheads who become extremely angry when exposed to a religious painting.

That's kind of disingenuous. I don't think anyone is suggesting the picture was there for it's artistic merit.

And hey, while I agree it is kind of petty to make a big deal over, I think it's also kind of petty to put the picture there in the first place. If well meaning but over zealous Christians stopped breaking the rules about this sort of stuff, they'd stop getting upset when the law tells them they're wrong.

You want to put up a picture of Jesus? Do it in your own home, or church, or Christian club, or privately owned business. Heck, hire a commercial billboard and put up a 3 meter high version where a million people a day could see it, if you want to. I really don't see a. what's so hard to understand about this, nor b. why so many people seem to think it's important to force their religion into places where it isn't appropriate.

 

[Supreme]

That was not the purpose here. It was not placed there because it was art. An art show/exhibit is entirely different.

Regardless of the original intention, it is clearly a piece of artwork. Art is (surprisingly) not exclusively for the domain of art galleries. It is everywhere in schools, hospitals, and universities in this country, and it tends not to offend- even if it is just an innocent picture of Jesus.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nice try: being concerned with constitutional violations is not petty: trying to maintain an outdated and irrelevant status quo for the sake of pleasing antiquated viewpoints is. A request for a school to maintain neutrality towards religion is not petty, a school demanding that it continue to give special treatment to the majority religion smacks of pettiness

I still don't see how it's a constitutional violation...

I wasn't aware that "the right to not be exposed to an inanimate object that I don't want to look at" was a constitutional protection, maybe you can point me to the specific verbiage in the constitution that covers that.

There's also no reason to assume that a picture hanging in a hallway somehow to equates to special treatment for any students.

Making the claim that a Jesus picture in a hallway equates to special treatment for Christians is about as big of a stretch as if someone where to claim that a School having "Cesar Chavez" in the name somehow implies special treatment for Latino students.

At the end of the day, people should just be honest about what this is....

It's not about a true advocacy of separation of church and state, if it were, then there are much bigger fish for the FFRF to go after in that regard.

It's not about protecting Children from indoctrination, if it were then they should be going after religious based schools, because, while they're privately funded, their accreditation is regulated by the state (and another poster said earlier, simply being regulated by the state is enough to satisfy the requirement of being a state actor)

It's not about protecting people from religious based legislation...because there are no laws being passed by hanging a picture...and there are plenty of things in society (like anti-abortion laws) that groups could be spending their time fighting against, and have a valid case.

This is simply about one thing for the FFRF, and that is "Taking Christians down a few pegs and letting them know who's boss"...plain and simple.

If anyone from that organization actually thinks a picture in a hallway constitutes religious legislation, then they need to have their IQ checked.

I realize there have been court cases on the matter, but a court's ruling shouldn't be viewed as the "end-all" for the discussion either...simply because the political affiliation of the Justice(s) involved often decides how the case will be handled. For every case where a judge rules to remove a picture...another judge makes a ruling like this:

the Supreme Court gave new support to cities that want to accept and display 10 commandments monuments without being forced to do the same for any and all other groups that want to make a permanent statement as well.

Justice Samuel Alito offered the opinion, finding that a 10 Commandments display in a Utah City Park is government speech, and therefore not subject to first amendment scrutiny.

You may have one judge that thinks a picture is a violation...and another that says that "Government Speech" is protected the same way Personal Speech is when it's not being done in a legislative manner or attempting to dictate the actions of others.

 

[cow451]

Regardless of the original intention, it is clearly a piece of artwork. Art is (surprisingly) not exclusively for the domain of art galleries. It is everywhere in schools, hospitals, and universities in this country, and it tends not to offend- even if it is just an innocent picture of Jesus.

If this picture were a print of a legitimate masterpiece, that argument might hold water. It isn't and it doesn't.