Kentucky court ignores requests to remove portrait of Jesus inside court house

[Arcangl86]

Holocaust. Don't question it. Holocaust.

Meh. The picture needs more context. If Baltimore has displays for all major religious holidays, then it's fine I think.

 

[Xalith]

Do you realize that when Christ establishes His eternal Kingdom there will be no America right? I understand that there is something far greater than America at work. You worry over nothing, because you trust in America. I trust in God. What good does "In God we Trust" do on all our coins and money if we do not actually do that?

Oh, I realize that.

However, there's that time period between now and the time Christ comes. Oh, trust me, there's nothing more I'd love than to see His Kingdom Come.

But, It hasn't come yet.

And day by day, people die in their sins, and it is difficult to reach out to people when the very government is doing their best to remove Christian symbols from the general public's eye.

I mean, c'mon, they want to take the picture down because its presence makes people uncomfortable!? Seriously? If someone looks at an image of Christ and feels uncomfortable about themselves... perhaps there's a reason and they ought to think about that reason? Like...maybe they aren't right with God and His Son?

One that won't allow states and municipalities to ignore the Constitution? Oh the horror!

The Constitution says "The Church won't tell the state what to do and the state won't tell the Church what to do" (paraphrased).

That doesn't mean "Thou shalt not have any sort of religious symbols anywhere near a government office", lol. Where did you get that crazy idea?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Holocaust. Don't question it. Holocaust.

In terms of displays on public property, as I brought up in a previous thread, there has already been a 9-0 court ruling that there is a difference between government legislation, and government speech.

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

The government speech doctrine, in American Constitutional Law, says that the government need not maintain viewpoint neutrality in its own speech, only in the restrictions it imposes on others.

The government entity choosing to display something isn't a restriction on anyone, simply an expression.

Now, if they told the Jewish guys that "Yeah, it's cool if you put the Menorah up", but then, denied that right to a Muslim group and tried to make an official rule (restriction) stating that only Judeo-Christian pictures/objects were allowed, then there would be a problem.

However, in all of these cases, it seems to be just petty attempts by FFRF to agitate, what they feel are, "stereotypical conservative Christian types".

Which is why they target Jesus pictures in schools in the south and more religious areas of the country, yet don't say a peep when liberal politicians make overtly religious references while speaking the capacity of their official roles.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why do Christians get Freedom Of Religion in public court houses and such but no one else does?

Because you know... America is a Christian nation. It says so right there in the constitu..... Oh wait.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Meh. The picture needs more context. If Baltimore has displays for all major religious holidays, then it's fine I think.

The claim that other posters were making was that any sort of religious symbolism on any sort of public property was a violation...I (as an atheist) was simply trying to be even handed and point out that it's not just Christians who do this.

...but I agree with you, I don't have an issue with it either.

The founders, who wrote the amendment, were okay with preachers using government buildings to hold church meetings, so clearly it's doubtful that the intent of the first amendment was "prevent anything religious from happening on public property".

But, the Dan Barkers of the world claim to know more about the intent of the amendment than the people who actually wrote it.

the records of Congress do note the request for use of the House of Representatives for church services. Here is the entry marking the occasion:

Note that the Speaker informed the assembled representatives that the Chaplains proposed to hold services in the Chamber. Apparently, it was agreeable to the House of Representatives since there is no recorded objection or vote on the matter. The Senate chaplain was Dr. Thomas John Claggett, an Episcopalian, and the House chaplain was Rev. Thomas Lyell, a Methodist. Both had begun their appointments in November, 1800.

If the amendment truly did mean "nothing religious can be on public property", I highly doubt this measure would've been approved considering that many of the constitution's (having just been signed 13 years prior) framers were still alive and in positions of power at the time this happened. There was no interpretation necessary at that point in time...they guys who wrote the thing were still alive an knew what their own intent was in the 1st amendment, and still allowed this to take place. That should be at least a little bit telling.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It isn't so much that they need the picture to pray, it is more about people wanting a picture to come down merely because it depicts a religious figure and is "offensive" to some people (which is all colors of stupid).

OK, what if I walk into a courtroom and I find Lady Justice offensive to me, her and her scales silently judging me from behind the judge? Can I demand that all statues/engravings/pictures of her be taken down too?

Is lady justice a religious symbol. If so, I needs to be taken down. I'm not getting why people are getting separation of church and state. If this was in someone house or church. Who cares? But government building it's suppose to be a big No.

 

[Xalith]

Is lady justice a religious symbol. If so, I needs to be taken down. I'm not getting why people are getting separation of church and state. If this was in someone house or church. Who cares? But government building it's suppose to be a big No.

Except that's not what they meant by "Separation of Church and State".

Read the post right above yours.

Back in the 1800s, they were holding church service in the government buildings, there are bibles in courthouses that are still used today to swear people in during court hearings, etc.

Separation of Church and State means that Church won't interfere in state matters, and the state won't interfere with Church matters and the two are separate. This does not mean that we must remove everything remotely religious from all government buildings and schools.

A picture of Jesus is not forcing the state to intervene in church matters, nor does it force churches to meddle in government affairs.

In fact, I'll even quote the Constitution:

Article 6:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

And that's all the Constitution has to say about Religion. Nowhere in that does it say there can't be a picture of Jesus in a courthouse.

 

[essentialsaltes]

OK, what if I walk into a courtroom and I find Lady Justice offensive to me, her and her scales silently judging me from behind the judge? Can I demand that all statues/engravings/pictures of her be taken down too?

You can demand it, but you won't get any action, because 'being offended' is not a legal ground for action. But the appearance of the government endorsing one religion over others is a legal ground for action, since it may violate the First Amendment. This is the problem of Jesus' image in the court room.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And that's all the Constitution has to say about Religion. Nowhere in that does it say there can't be a picture of Jesus in a courthouse.

The courts (and ultimately the Supreme Court) are the final word on how the constitution is to be interpreted, and there is a long history of First Amendment cases that have fleshed out separation of church and state issues. In that context, I think the FFRF would be likely to prevail if it went to court, but it's not a slam-dunk.

 

[Xalith]

The courts (and ultimately the Supreme Court) are the final word on how the constitution is to be interpreted, and there is a long history of First Amendment cases that have fleshed out separation of church and state issues. In that context, I think the FFRF would be likely to prevail if it went to court, but it's not a slam-dunk.

Sadly, our courts suck at interpretation, because I read about some of those cases, and I'm scratching my head wondering just HOW they came up with that load of bull from what the Constitution says. The quoted blocks above don't really leave that much room open for interpretation, to be honest.

But then, I suppose we have the same thing going on in the Bible, where someone will take a verse and absolutely twist it all around, twisting it hundreds of times until they make it mean something they want it to mean.

 

[TheBarrd]

It's a sad, sad, sad thing, when a picture can get people in this much of a fret.

 

[Armoured]

It's a sad, sad, sad thing, when a picture can get people in this much of a fret.

One wonders how many of the people making such a claim would care if it were a picture of, say, Ganesha, or Mohamed?

 

[Glass*Soul]

That image is taken completely out of context.

1). He flipped over the money-changers' tables. These were small little dinky coin-counting benches that they used in the old days. They were probably about a foot high, and perhaps a foot by three foot wide.

2). He didn't chase people with whips; He whipped the animals to get them to run away.

Not once did He threaten or lay a finger on a person in the Temple, in either of the two times He did this in the Gospels.

Interestingly, the John 2:15 passage depicts him driving out the animals and pouring out people's money. The Matthew 21:12 passage depicts him driving out all those who were buying and selling and overturning their tables and seats.

 

[Glass*Soul]

One wonders how many of the people making such a claim would care if it were a picture of, say, Ganesha, or Mohamed?

May I add that if they were to hang a picture of Mohamed, it would be the Muslims who would be most upset. Islam takes the power of a depiction quite seriously.

Some Christians, OTOH, have come to the odd conclusion that religious depictions are somehow both of little importance, in that non-Christians have no right to get up in arms about them and are being petty if they do so, and of great importance, in that they are being discriminated agaisnt if not allowed to install them in public schools and court houses such that entire towns produce an "uproar" over the affront. The forbidden "graven images" noted in the 10 Commandments do not include any depictions of their deity they might want installed next to them in their court houses. After all, any depictions of their deity are only art, unless they are removed in which case they become powerful emblems of their very religious freedom or some such.

It confused me.

 

[Maren]

The claim that other posters were making was that any sort of religious symbolism on any sort of public property was a violation...I (as an atheist) was simply trying to be even handed and point out that it's not just Christians who do this.

...but I agree with you, I don't have an issue with it either.

The founders, who wrote the amendment, were okay with preachers using government buildings to hold church meetings, so clearly it's doubtful that the intent of the first amendment was "prevent anything religious from happening on public property".

But, the Dan Barkers of the world claim to know more about the intent of the amendment than the people who actually wrote it.

the records of Congress do note the request for use of the House of Representatives for church services. Here is the entry marking the occasion:

Note that the Speaker informed the assembled representatives that the Chaplains proposed to hold services in the Chamber. Apparently, it was agreeable to the House of Representatives since there is no recorded objection or vote on the matter. The Senate chaplain was Dr. Thomas John Claggett, an Episcopalian, and the House chaplain was Rev. Thomas Lyell, a Methodist. Both had begun their appointments in November, 1800.

If the amendment truly did mean "nothing religious can be on public property", I highly doubt this measure would've been approved considering that many of the constitution's (having just been signed 13 years prior) framers were still alive and in positions of power at the time this happened. There was no interpretation necessary at that point in time...they guys who wrote the thing were still alive an knew what their own intent was in the 1st amendment, and still allowed this to take place. That should be at least a little bit telling.

And as I have told you before, you are removing the context from this case to make it say something that it doesn't actually. If the courthouse had a space for all citizens to hang "art", then you would have a point. In this case, where only a Christian piece of art is being allowed, it is a clear violation per the Supreme Court.

Again, the established legal ruling is that you have to allow "all" (within rules that pass the strict scrutiny of a court) or none. In this case, Kentucky is not open to allowing others.

 

[Armoured]

May I add that if they were to hang a picture of Mohamed, it would be the Muslims who would be most upset. Islam takes the power of a depiction quite seriously.

I am aware of that. I was trying to make an example. Swap for "framed verses of the koran", if you prefer.

Some Christians, OTOH, have come to the odd conclusion that religious depictions are somehow both of little importance, in that non-Christians have no right to get up in arms about them and are being petty if they do so, and of great importance, in that they are being discriminated agaisnt if not allowed to install them in public schools and court houses such that entire towns produce an "uproar" over the affront. The forbidden "graven images" noted in the 10 Commandments do not include any depictions of their deity they might want installed next to them in their court houses. After all, any depictions of their deity are only art, unless they are removed in which case they become powerful emblems of their very religious freedom or some such.

It confused me.

It's called hypocrisy. The worst bit is that the worst offenders rarely know they're doing it.

 

[Xalith]

Some Christians, OTOH, have come to the odd conclusion that religious depictions are somehow both of little importance, in that non-Christians have no right to get up in arms about them and are being petty if they do so, and of great importance, in that they are being discriminated agaisnt if not allowed to install them in public schools and court houses such that entire towns produce an "uproar" over the affront.

It isn't so much that they are angry that they can't install them, it is more that a picture that has been there for years, and all of the sudden "YOU MUST TAKE IT DOWN NOW!!!" that we find utterly ridiculous.

How long, again, has that picture of Jesus hung on the wall? Why do we have to remove it when there's nothing wrong with its presence? That's what we find so ridiculous about this whole mess. It is already there, it isn't hurting anyone, and it isn't against the law. Why take it down?

The forbidden "graven images" noted in the 10 Commandments do not include any depictions of their deity they might want installed next to them in their court houses.

Graven Images are images of false gods that are being worshipped. Leviticus expands on that Commandment, saying that man shall not make any image of anything in the earth, in the heavens, in the sea, or under the ground with the purpose of worshipping it, because Israel (and everybody else for that matter) at the time was so prone to chasing after idols, looking for some new statue of a creature to worship.

I have three dolphin statuettes in my room. They are not idols, or graven images because I don't worship them. They are merely, yes, art.

After all, any depictions of their deity are only art, unless they are removed in which case they become powerful emblems of their very religious freedom or some such. It confused me.

You can make a statue of a minotaur and stick it in the courtyard of a courthouse, I don't care. You won't find me (or any other sane person for that matter) worshipping it, though.

Nor do you find anybody bowing down to the picture of Jesus to worship the picture.

 

[jgarden]

Well as long as they allow Joseph Smith, Muhammad and other religion leaders on there walls too. Why would I care. But I have a feeling this Jesus picture will go down.

The Moslems are opposed to portraying Mohammad and Allah in art because they consider it idolatry.

Given that the Founding Fathers deliberately chose not to establish a state "religion," one wonders as to why a portrait favoring one religion was placed in a courthouse in the first place.

American conservatives who are trying to make this an issue should reread the Constitution and stop making these portraits a form of idolatry.

 

[Xalith]

Given that the Founding Fathers deliberately chose not to establish a state "religion," one wonders as to why a portrait favoring one religion was placed in a courthouse in the first place.

Because the people in charge of that particular courthouse happened to like that painting? Doesn't matter what the reason is, it isn't breaking the law and it isn't "hurting" anyone, other than a few peoples taking offense to it.

American conservatives who are trying to make this an issue should reread the Constitution and stop making these portraits a form of idolatry.

Just wish that America would stop trying to cater to everybody to the point where we try everything we can not to offend anybody's delicate standards. People really do need to grow a spine and stop victimizing themselves and being offended at every little thing.

Seriously.

We Christians have to walk the streets day and night hearing nearly everybody and their brother blaspheming our Lord, and God and it offends us... but do we start whining all over the place? No. There might be times a Christian might decide to leave an event or something if it is blasphemous but for the most part, most Christians will just give a soft sigh, and a roll of their eyes and a quick "Father, forgive him/her, for he/she knows not what he/she is saying" or something along those lines and move on.

Why can't other people just ignore stuff and move on? Why does everybody have to get all bent out of shape over a portrait of a religious figure on a wall in some courthouse to the point that we waste God-Only-Knows how much money in court fees, lawyer fees, etc to debate the case to have it removed?

How many starving kids in Africa could that much money feed for a few days? I wish they'd think about that before going on their stupid crusades to stamp out every symbol of religion in any public area....

 

[Red Fox]

American conservatives who are trying to make this an issue should reread the Constitution and stop making these portraits a form of idolatry.

I know. I guess many conservative Christians feel they are entitled to special privileges because they are Christian. Many conservative Christians are complaining about the protesting of this portrait being displayed when so many of them threw a fit when a statue of Satan was put on display in Detroit and Oklahoma City not so long ago.