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

[bhsmte]

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.

Then pick art that doesn't have a religious meaning to it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Some people don't realize that all public schools had things like the Ten Commandments and daily bible readings at one time. Some places are just a little behind the rest of the country when it comes to these things. I still remember back in 1984, when the janitors took down all of the Ten Commandments plaques at my elementary school. There was also a bible that was still in the library, but it was in the storage part and not set out with the other books to check out.

Some people don't realize it but school children used to be beaten with a stick by their teachers. Yeah, the good old days.

 

[cow451]

Some people don't realize it but school children used to be beaten with a stick by their teachers. Yeah, the good old days.

My brother had a couple of encounters with the "Board" of Education.

 

[DaisyDay]

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.

It's sort of art, if schlock mass produced is art.

In a document written in 1945, the publishers indicate that by the previous year a total of 14 million single pictures had been printed...The image was marketed in an inexpensively framed format; as cards bearing devotional texts; and on greeting cards, church bulletins, clocks, lamps, buttons, and funeral announcements to name only a few examples. Sales catalogs and promotional literature advertised Sallman’s principal paintings each year. The Head of Christ became the virtual trademark of Kriebel & Bates and so quickly found public acceptance that the publishers encouraged Sallman to use the head as frequently as possible in other depictions of Christ. The artist complied by duplicating the head in other images, rotating it to reveal more of the face, and reversing it as in Christ Our Pilot.
​

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Cool. So we're back to there being nothing wrong with public school employees leading their students in compulsory Islamic prayers. After all, these teachers wouldn't be restricted by the 1st amendment since there isn't any law being made by the state or federal government, it is just school policy.

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

Just like my example of a teacher coercing students into prayer. No state legislation involved. I don't see the distinction you're trying to make.

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.

But it is an action by a government employee promoting a particular religion to the exclusion of all others. Or are you going to propose some sort of purely secular motivation for putting up a picture of Jesus?

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

I wasn't aware that the first amendment said anything about prohibiting the government from attempting to force anyone to do anything they didn't want to do. Perhaps you can quote that part of the text for us.

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

What secular educational purpose does the picture serve?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases...a-professor-s-promotion-of-islam-in-classroom

It's the first google hit, this can't exactly be a surprise to anyone who is actually interested in an answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's sort of art, if schlock mass produced is art.

When the school puts up a velvet Elvis next to their painting of the god of Christianity I'll start to believe that they're interested in exploring various themes in hokey American art fads. Until then, it is an obvious nod to the government endorsing the religious beliefs of the majority to the exclusion of all others and doesn't belong in a public school.

 

[Blank Stair]

When the school puts up a velvet Elvis next to their painting of the god of Christianity I'll start to believe that they're interested in exploring various themes in hokey American art fads. Until then, it is an obvious nod to the government endorsing the religious beliefs of the majority to the exclusion of all others and doesn't belong in a public school.

Your religion is prominent in schools. Why are you opposed to diversity?

 

[KCfromNC]

Your religion is prominent in schools. Why are you opposed to diversity?

I don't have a religion, so I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

I'd also be curious how many other gods of various religions are pictured in this school's display of alleged diversity. My understanding is just one, which is kind of strange if that's their intent. If you're really in favor of diversity it seems you'd have as much of an issue as the legal system does with the activity of the government here.

 

[Blank Stair]

I don't have a religion, so I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.

I'm surprised an atheist wouldn't keep up with the news. The Supreme Court says you do have a religion. Look it up. [And no, I won't do it for you. Any atheist knows this decision because it occurred to their great upset years ago when an inmate demanded his atheistic religious rights under the 1st] Atheism, by SCOTUS vote is a religion. That is what makes the FFRF group so darn funny as a whole and what helps off set their anti-Christian, Anti-Constitution, Anti-American agenda.

Atheism , per SCOTUS, is a religion. FFRF= (Atheists) Freedom From Religion Foundation.

 

[Blank Stair]

Yeah, that's why you put that Google proof as your link right? So that those keywords you used to find the results of FFRF going against other religions besides Christianity would show the Google page with allllll those results to choose from.

https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases...a-professor-s-promotion-of-islam-in-classroom

It's the first google hit, this can't exactly be a surprise to anyone who is actually interested in an answer.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm surprised an atheist wouldn't keep up with the news. The Supreme Court says you do have a religion. Look it up. [And no, I won't do it for you. Any atheist knows this decision because it occurred to their great upset years ago when an inmate demanded his atheistic religious rights under the 1st] Atheism, by SCOTUS vote is a religion. That is what makes the FFRF group so darn funny as a whole and what helps off set their anti-Christian, Anti-Constitution, Anti-American agenda.

Atheism , per SCOTUS, is a religion. FFRF= (Atheists) Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a position on a religious belief and as such merits religious protection just like the beliefs of other religions. You should look up the definition of religion sometime and also inform yourself about some of the various atheistic and secular religions like Humanism or some schools of Buddhism. Those would be religions, but atheism itself is not, just like theism itself is not any religion but a belief in deities.

The SCOTUS only ruled that atheistic beliefs are to be protected just the same as religious beliefs.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cool. So we're back to there being nothing wrong with public school employees leading their students in compulsory Islamic prayers. After all, these teachers wouldn't be restricted by the 1st amendment since there isn't any law being made by the state or federal government, it is just school policy.

Just like my example of a teacher coercing students into prayer. No state legislation involved. I don't see the distinction you're trying to make.

You clipped out the parts of my post that addressed this. So I'll repost it here:

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

Not sure why you mentioned 'Islamic' in your example?...is it because you suspect that I somehow have favoritism toward Christianity over Islam because I happen to be conservative on certain issues?...and you assume that'll be a "gotcha" scenario? As an Atheist, to me it makes no difference. Making a rule (IE: compulsory) for prayer would tread the line of the State Actor laws I mentioned before since that would resemble a legislative action. If they were forcing students to pray, then I'd agree 100% that we had a violation on our hands due to the State Actor laws.

A hanging picture and compulsory prayer have nothing to do with each other.

Compulsory could reasonable be equated to a legislative action (a rule that people are forced to follow) which then puts the school in the role of state actor.

An object on public property, at most, can only be equated to Government Speech...which in a supreme court ruling that was 9-0, was found not to be a violation in the case of the 10 commandments display in Utah (the case I mentioned earlier)

In a nine to zero opinion, 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.

To elaborate on Government Speech:
The government speech doctrine, in American Constitutional Law, says that the government need not maintain viewpoint neutrality in its own speech.

I wasn't aware that the first amendment said anything about prohibiting the government from attempting to force anyone to do anything they didn't want to do. Perhaps you can quote that part of the text for us.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Key words, shall make no law...law being the mechanism used by government to dictate behavior. Hanging a picture, by itself with no other action, doesn't equate to a law. Now if they made a rule stating that you weren't allowed to ignore the picture, then the aforementioned state actor laws would apply.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What secular educational purpose does the picture serve?

A decoration need not have a secular educational purpose. If a teacher or staff member wants to hand a floral display in the hallway, that serves no secular educational purpose.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm surprised an atheist wouldn't keep up with the news. The Supreme Court says you do have a religion. Look it up. [And no, I won't do it for you. Any atheist knows this decision because it occurred to their great upset years ago when an inmate demanded his atheistic religious rights under the 1st] Atheism, by SCOTUS vote is a religion. That is what makes the FFRF group so darn funny as a whole and what helps off set their anti-Christian, Anti-Constitution, Anti-American agenda.

Atheism , per SCOTUS, is a religion. FFRF= (Atheists) Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Between the goofy pictures and the admission you can't show any sources for what you're claiming, there's really nothing for me to address here. Nice try at dodging the "one picture of Jesus is a diversity display" goof, by the way - I guess when you have nothing this is what you have to end up with.

 

[KCfromNC]

A decoration need not have a secular educational purpose.

It is if it is going to pass constitutional muster when challenged as an endorsement of religion by a government institution. You know, all that pesky precedent from the experts in charge of interpreting US Constitutional law that seems to keep getting in the way of your feelings of how things should be.

 

[KCfromNC]

You clipped out the parts of my post that addressed this. So I'll repost it here:

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

This says nothing about prohibiting local school boards or teachers from doing whatever they wish, so by your incredibly strict reading it has zero bearing on my question. That's why I ignored it.

But if you think that school employees are now state actors, you're going to have a tough time arguing that a school administrator magically stops being a state actor when they're hanging up a picture of the embodied god of Christianity in a school they run as a representative of the government.

An object on public property, at most, can only be equated to Government Speech

You say one thing, the courts say another : http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/cases/washegesic-v-bloomingdale-public-schools

 

[Armoured]

Yeah, that's why you put that Google proof as your link right? So that those keywords you used to find the results of FFRF going against other religions besides Christianity would show the Google page with allllll those results to choose from.

You said "name one".

Don't shift the goal posts now.

 

[Armoured]

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

Quite so. If FFRF starts demanding art teachers pull down reproductions of the Renaissance masters' religious art, then, sure. But yes, hokey Aryan Jesus doesn't really qualify, IMHO.