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

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, that's why you put that Google proof as your link right?

The link is to the FFRF themselves. Not sure what you're getting at.

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.

That's how search engines work, at least at a superficial level.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Correct and in a public school, decorations that promote a certain religion, creates a problem.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

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

It absolutely does...if you're setting policies (legislative action) for state property, then you become a state actor, and thus, have to abide by the same rules as the government would in terms of what kinds of legislative actions are allowed, and what kinds aren't allowed. If you're merely hanging a picture, it'd be government speech (at most), which isn't confined to the rules of the first amendment (per the 9-0 ruling I noted earlier)

per the court ruling I posted...it appears that court rulings seem to be hit or miss on the topic. (as has been noted a couple times in this thread)

If they're acting in a legislative capacity (IE: making rules for what goes on in their institution) then the state actor laws would apply. When they're hanging up a picture, they're not setting rules that anyone has to follow, nor are they prohibiting anyone from doing anything.

There's a definite distinction to be made in terms of separating Government Speech from Legislative action.
In a nutshell: legislative action vs. expression

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

In many ways Atheists (collectively) function as a religion. I think it's very telling that it's one of the very rare instances where the non-affirmative position has a special name/title...for example, there's no special word or title for "non-Football fans", or "non-pizza fan"...so why do we have a special term for "non-religion believer"?

Atheists debate (and often times have an ideologically consistent position with each other) on many of the same topics that religious people debate on. However, Atheists seem to get a "best of both worlds" scenario in terms of how their initiatives are handled. Atheists get all of the same protections that religions get (discriminate against one, and they'll be quick to tell you so), however, when it comes time to abide by the same restrictions, Atheists often times throw out the "well, we don't have to follow that rule, we're not a 'religion' like those other guys"

The most common example of this is the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate in terms of the classroom,
(for the record, I'm an evolutionist)

Even in cases where a school might want to teach a generic form (non-religion specific) of ID in conjunction with cosmology/evolution, they'll shoot it down on the grounds that "it's a religious thing, we don't want you teaching that", yet, they can demand that their preferred theory of earth origins be taught, exclusively, on the grounds that "well, we're not a religion".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Correct and in a public school, decorations that promote a certain religion, creates a problem.

This premise has a few flaws...

1.) It assumes that a decoration's intent is to dictate the behavior of the students based on a specific moral code...which a decoration cannot do...laws/rules/policies are what do that. ...and a picture isn't any one of those 3 things.

2.) Equating hanging a picture in a hallway with the active promotion of an ideal is a big stretch.

Read the details about Government speech and some of the case law associated with it...it's pretty clear that the idea is that government expression need not be neutral, however, Government restrictions do need to be neutral.

In this scenario, hanging a picture isn't a restriction or rule that they're making anyone follow, it's simply an expression.

I'll re-post this court ruling because I feel it drives the point home:

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. Further states: "You don't have to put a statue of tyranny next to the Statue of Liberty. You don't have to put up and anti-war monument next to the VFW monument to the veterans."

 

[Blank Stair]

The link is to the FFRF themselves. Not sure what you're getting at.

You're not? You said that your link was easily found with a Google search.
The contention was people don't see FFRF going after other religions the way they go after Christianity and Christians.
One link? At FFRF site doesn't refute that.
If you found more than one proof about FFRF going after more than just Christianity and Christians in a Google search, what's the problem with showing proof of the many hits that search would have afforded?

That's how search engines work, at least at a superficial level.

Snide. That's so cute.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

This isn't about being offended, it's about setting a principle that the school thinks it's okay to show favoritism towards Christianity.

Parochial schools can make the argument that they have a religious purpose in mind for their school and are protected in terms of skirting the line, similar to religious organizations discriminating in hiring practices.

No one said this was about legislation, but some acts can constitute a violation of establishment clause by respecting an establishment of religion even without specific policy being passed.

"Taking Christians down a few pegs" isn't about showing superiority of atheism or secularism, but that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the bible or other religious texts. Christians don't get a free pass because they're in the majority.

Speech is still subject to scrutiny in establishment cases when the speech entails a respecting of a religious establishment. Even if the 10 Commandments aren't unique to Christianity, the exclusion of non Abrahamic faiths still shows an unfair bias towards them, saying they aren't full citizens in some implicit sense.

 

[muichimotsu]

This premise has a few flaws...

1.) It assumes that a decoration's intent is to dictate the behavior of the students based on a specific moral code...which a decoration cannot do...laws/rules/policies are what do that. ...and a picture isn't any one of those 3 things.

2.) Equating hanging a picture in a hallway with the active promotion of an ideal is a big stretch.

Read the details about Government speech and some of the case law associated with it...it's pretty clear that the idea is that government expression need not be neutral, however, Government restrictions do need to be neutral.

In this scenario, hanging a picture isn't a restriction or rule that they're making anyone follow, it's simply an expression.

I'll re-post this court ruling because I feel it drives the point home:

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. Further states: "You don't have to put a statue of tyranny next to the Statue of Liberty. You don't have to put up and anti-war monument next to the VFW monument to the veterans."

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.

 

[DaisyDay]

You're not? You said that your link was easily found with a Google search.
The contention was people don't see FFRF going after other religions the way they go after Christianity and Christians.
One link? At FFRF site doesn't refute that.

You said,"Name one." He did. Why wouldn't FFRF's own website saying it was going after a teacher for proselytizing Islam be sufficient evidence for you that it does go after religions other than Christianity?

If you found more than one proof about FFRF going after more than just Christianity and Christians in a Google search, what's the problem with showing proof of the many hits that search would have afforded?

You said to name one. If you wanted more, why only demand one?

Snide. That's so cute.

Glass houses, stones.

 

[Blank Stair]

You said,"Name one." He did. Why wouldn't FFRF's own website saying it was going after a teacher for proselytizing Islam be sufficient evidence for you that it does go after religions other than Christianity?

You said to name one. If you wanted more, why only demand one?

Following the conversation helps immensely. He stated he found hits on Google. When there's only one, that just supports my prior contention. So thanks!

Glass houses, stones.

How's your view? No opportunity missed huh?

 

[DaisyDay]

Following the conversation helps immensely. He stated he found hits on Google. When there's only one, that just supports my prior contention. So thanks!

You said to name one. He named one. That post is still there for everyone to see.

Now you want to move the goal posts. You're welcome!

 

[Blank Stair]

God Bless you all over the place.

 

[Supreme]

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

Art without meaning is like food without taste.

 

[Vylo]

Art without meaning is like food without taste.

Something can have meaning without religion being it. In fact things without religion tend to have more meaning than those with it.

 

[Armoured]

Art without meaning is like food without taste.

He didn't say art without meaning, he said art without religious meaning. You're smarter than that.

 

[Armoured]

Following the conversation helps immensely. He stated he found hits on Google. When there's only one, that just supports my prior contention. So thanks!

How's your view? No opportunity missed huh?

How does "one" support your contention that there are "none"? Do please explain?

 

[KCfromNC]

It absolutely does...if you're setting policies (legislative action) for state property, then you become a state actor, and thus, have to abide by the same rules as the government would in terms of what kinds of legislative actions are allowed, and what kinds aren't allowed. If you're merely hanging a picture, it'd be government speech (at most), which isn't confined to the rules of the first amendment (per the 9-0 ruling I noted earlier)

I guess if you're willing to ignore case law specifically related to this situation and make up your own ideas of what the courts should have done, there's no harm in it. After all, your professional legal opinion isn't the one that matters here.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're not? You said that your link was easily found with a Google search.

I still have no idea what you're going on about here. Yes, Google is a search engine which lets you enter terms and provides a list of links to various sites relevant to those search terms. I followed that process and found a press release from the FFRF specifically addressing your question and posted it here. This process seems so simple I can't imagine why you'd have a question about it.

The contention was people don't see FFRF going after other religions the way they go after Christianity and Christians.

That's not true. Here's what you asked for :

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

If you weren't interested in just one case, why did you ask for that specifically? Seems even you can't keep up with your own spin.

If you found more than one proof about FFRF going after more than just Christianity and Christians in a Google search, what's the problem with showing proof of the many hits that search would have afforded?

If that's what you wanted, why did you ask for only one? Did you forget what you asked for, or are you just hoping other people will?

 

[Blank Stair]

How does "one" support your contention that there are "none"? Do please explain?

Please do read me right before you ask questions of what I said.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please do read me right before you ask questions of what I said.

None of my questions were answered in any of your posts, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have missed. I still have no idea what your point is, other than possibly to distract from the fact that you didn't know that the FFRF actually does oppose illegal religious-based activity from non-Christians as well as Christians.