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

[Supreme]

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.

 

[AirPo]

Freedom From Religion Foundation! I knew it was their evil in the news again as soon as I read the thread title.

Their day will come. Cowards. Notice how they're anti-Christian? And don't go after any other religion but Christians?

Their weakness is that they're a 501(c)3.

Really, what other religion has their iconary hanging on the walls of public schools in the US?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Some of us are happy they've taken the painting down. Now if it was verses from scripture or public prayer I'd be arguing differently.

That second commandment, though.

In that case, what about verses from Islam's Quran or the Talmud of Judaism..Both of those religions base their beliefs on the Bibl.....Should they also be allowed.....

http://www.heartofisrael.net/mdl/RJandIslam.htm

quote: Any religion not based on Yeshua (Jesus) is a losh based on the sinful nature of man. Those who would reject G-d's provision of a Messiah is a tool of Satan to decieve mankind and lead them astray.
Consider these comparisons between the Writings of Islam and the Writings of Rabbinic Judaism (Talmud).

Yeshua alone is the WAY. the TRUTH, and the LIFE...................

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It made it's way in there because there is no "Separation of Church and State". It's a fantasy. It doesn't exist. It was Jefferson's idea and it didn't take. What there IS, is the First Amendment, which prevents the state from coming in and limiting religious expression such as removing a picture that can be ignored by people who aren't of that faith.

Correct, it was something Jefferson wrote in a letter to a baptist minister, but nowhere is such an idea codified.

...and the first amendment places limitations in both directions. Government can't pass any laws respecting an establishment of religion, they also can't limit free exercise of religion.

However, as I noted in an earlier post, a middle school isn't a legislative body, and a picture isn't a law...so I'm not sure why some of my fellow secularists feel that this is a violation.

 

[fizzygiraffe]

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.

Wouldn't that be a blessing? FFRF is also a member of Atheist Alliance International.
Conceding to the demands of such a bigoted group as this only inspires them to continue their exclusive pursuits against Christians and Christianity.

I would agree that there are enough legal minds out there who are also Christian who should find an inroad to put a stop to this pursuit. That we're not hearing about such things is troubling quite frankly.

I conducted a search at the IRS for FFRF's information and couldn't find anything listed using the search criteria afforded by their information at the FFRF website. So I don 't know how their tax deductible status works out.

Revoke a peoples religion and that impacts their hope. FFRF make clear their agenda just in their name. Though quite frankly the law should force them to be honest and add, TC, to their acronym. Freedom From The Christian Religion Foundation.
They don't have to broadcast that they're anti-Constitutionalists and Atheist. That's obvious in just the forewarning their name allows.

 

[Blue Wren]

Do Americans really believe that painting, is what Jesus looks like? To me, the painting, it is tacky. It's inappropriate, in the school, of course. The school should focus more, on educating its students. Not acting dramatic, over a painting.

 

[Belk]

Wouldn't that be a blessing? FFRF is also a member of Atheist Alliance International.
Conceding to the demands of such a bigoted group as this only inspires them to continue their exclusive pursuits against Christians and Christianity.

I would agree that there are enough legal minds out there who are also Christian who should find an inroad to put a stop to this pursuit. That we're not hearing about such things is troubling quite frankly.

I conducted a search at the IRS for FFRF's information and couldn't find anything listed using the search criteria afforded by their information at the FFRF website. So I don 't know how their tax deductible status works out.

Revoke a peoples religion and that impacts their hope. FFRF make clear their agenda just in their name. Though quite frankly the law should force them to be honest and add, TC, to their acronym. Freedom From The Christian Religion Foundation.
They don't have to broadcast that they're anti-Constitutionalists and Atheist. That's obvious in just the forewarning their name allows.

That you are not hearing such things is likely do to the fact that lawyers have a good understanding of how such a case is likely to go.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's been pretty well established for some time now that public schools, being a part of the government, are to be neutral in matters of religion.

No, they are not a legislative body and no, they are not enacting laws. They still are under the completely logical and legal precedent that had established a separation of religion and government.

Because the US has no federally recognized official religion, it logically follows that the US cannot give preference to one religion over any other. This applies not just to schools and congress but also to courts, the DMV, the SS office, the military, etc.

So there is absolutely no reason why a picture of Jesus should be hanging in a public school unless that school has no problem hanging up a picture of Satan, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or Moses. And mind you, this is still ignoring literally thousands of other religions that are recognized just like Christianity. If the school truly wanted to be impartial, they'd have more pictures of religious figures than there are students in the year book.

 

[fizzygiraffe]

That you are not hearing such things is likely do to the fact that lawyers have a good understanding of how such a case is likely to go.

I wouldn't think to speak in any absolute concerning the courts.

SCOTUS back in 2010 ruled that a white cross, erected as a war memorial and sitting on national parkland in the Mojave Desert, did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
This was after an atheist who was also a park employee brought a suit to have it removed.

I'd hope something of that nature in a SCOTUS decision would give background and legal support to a Christian law firm who might seek to stop FFRF from their assaults in America.

 

[bhsmte]

In another thread, a school removed the U.S. (American) flag. This 'political correctness' has gone on for a long, long time. One viewpoint from a senior citizen was, "If we permit our flag, then we have to permit all other flags." That same argument would apply here...... permit a painting of Jesus, ya gotta permit a painting of Buddha et al. That same argument is used to destroy English-only.

Our days of honoring our Savior and our flag are sliding (not slipping) away.

You can still honor what you choose in you're personal life, correct?

 

[Belk]

I wouldn't think to speak in any absolute concerning the courts.

SCOTUS back in 2010 ruled that a white cross, erected as a war memorial and sitting on national parkland in the Mojave Desert, did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
This was after an atheist who was also a park employee brought a suit to have it removed.

I'd hope something of that nature in a SCOTUS decision would give background and legal support to a Christian law firm who might seek to stop FFRF from their assaults in America.

I find it doubtful but there are a couple lawyers one the board. Hopefully one will stop by to give their opinion on the subject.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Incorporation via the 14th amendment

I've already covered that in my previous post...

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.

Again, the case of a Jesus picture in a hallway still doesn't bring the 14th amendment into play because it's not a scenario in which the state is making or enforcing a law that contradicts the constitution.

Short version: Jesus picture has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Glass*Soul]

So, when they say "Town in Uproar," what does that actually mean? Are a couple of old men grousing about it at the local barber shop, or is the entire population (minus the two evolution kids) demonstrating in the streets?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Again, the case of a Jesus picture in a hallway still doesn't bring the 14th amendment into play because it's not a scenario in which the state is making or enforcing a law that contradicts the constitution.

Short version: Jesus picture has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process in any way, shape, or form.

What about the First Amendment? Do the students of other religious faiths not have the same freedom as Christians at the school? Should the school then not make sure they provide for each of their students and the various faiths they might follow without preference for one over the other?

How is it not a violation of freedom of religion to force students to look at the face of one specific religion's central figure?

 

[TerranceL]

What confuses me is the confusion about FFRF "going after" christians, I don't know if the people making such statements realize this but... America, the country where FFRF operates... is... wait for it.... a predominately christian nation. And thus it's mostly christians who are attempting to use the government to spread their religion.

That said to claim that they are never critical of other religions is a blatant falsehood.

Here they are praising Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her work in exposing the grotesqueness of Islam.
https://ffrf.org/outreach/awards/emperor-has-no-clothes-award/item/11998-ayaan-hirsi-ali
The award she was given in the past years has been given to Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins two men who were well known for their outspoken dislike of Islam.

They have held debates with Islamic scholars debating the existence of god.

To claim that they are somehow just targeting christians is ignorant.

 

[bhsmte]

I've already covered that in my previous post...

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.

Again, the case of a Jesus picture in a hallway still doesn't bring the 14th amendment into play because it's not a scenario in which the state is making or enforcing a law that contradicts the constitution.

Short version: Jesus picture has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process in any way, shape, or form.

How is the picture of Jesus in a public school, any different than the 10 commandment statues, being in public government buildings?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What about the First Amendment? Do the students of other religious faiths not have the same freedom as Christians at the school? Should the school then not make sure they provide for each of their students and the various faiths they might follow without preference for one over the other?

How is it not a violation of freedom of religion to force students to look at the face of one specific religion's central figure?

They absolutely have the same freedoms...

To me, since it's not part of any sort of legislative process, it's no worse of an infraction than putting up a particular sports team's logo in a school. If a school puts up a Cleveland Browns poster in a hallway, is that a violation of the rights (freedom of expression) of a student who happens to be a Steelers fan?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How is the picture of Jesus in a public school, any different than the 10 commandment statues, being in public government buildings?

It's not...which is why I don't particularly take issue with that either. If they start trying to utilize religion to dictate legislation, then we have a problem. However, an inanimate object made out of paper/stone/glass/etc... simply being on/in property doesn't constitute legislation/policy-making respecting an establishment of religion.

 

[bhsmte]

It's not...which is why I don't particularly take issue with that either. If they start trying to utilize religion to dictate legislation, then we have a problem. However, an inanimate object made out of paper/stone/glass/etc... simply being on/in property doesn't constitute legislation/policy-making respecting an establishment of religion.

Haven't courts ruled, that allowing religious symbols on public property could be construed as promoting that particular religion?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Haven't courts ruled, that allowing religious symbols on public property could be construed as promoting that particular religion?

The government's attitude seems to be hit or miss on the topic.

In some cases, they rule that a Jesus picture at a post office is a violation...

Yet, they still allow opening prayer in congress sessions...you'd think, in terms of the letter of the law of the first amendment, congress (the actual legislative body mentioned in the amendment) opening up their session with prayer would be a bigger violation than a Jesus picture arbitrarily hung up in a government building somewhere based on the standards that some are setting for what's considered a violation.