Seems you do too, your own thread: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4426538&postcount=1
A portrait of Jesus in a school? Seriously?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Seems you do too, your own thread: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4426538&postcount=1
Jose Fly
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
The courts are wrong.
You are dodging your own argument.
If you believe that the state and local governments are violating the US Constitution, then provide the text of the Constitution and prove it.
Why do you keep refusing to post the text?
Are you afraid posting the text will make you look any stupider than your lame arguments that a school in Kansas hanging a picture of Jesus on the wall is actually the Federal Congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
Direct comparison to the OP that actually made it to court:
Judge Allows Ten Commandments Monument To Remain On Public School Grounds
Do not cave.
Judge Allows Ten Commandments Monument To Remain On Public School Grounds
Do not cave.
That goes against your point, that judge said the cheer leaders were acting as individuals and that it wasn't the school.
See the other link posted for a direct comparison.
Tell me also who hung the picture of Jesus in the halls, in the OP and the story behind it. Thanks.
And there's the solution.
The school can have a wall for stuff like that and the students can put up whomever they like problem solved.
Jose Fly
New member
If that's what you believe, then you need to convince the courts to rule otherwise.
Sheesh....what is it with you fundamentalists and answering questions? This is very, very simple...
Are you arguing that state and local governments can violate the US Constitution as they please?
Jose Fly
New member
The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing. He didn't address the constitutionality of the issue.
Doesn't matter, it was allowed to stay wasn't it. This case in the OP would have lost based on the same thing.
Meaning, let them take you to court, do not cave. In most cases they wont bother taking you to court - they just hope you cave.
Misleading, he didn't _allows_religious_monument_to_remain_on_school_grounds
He decided she didn't have grounds, he's gonna lose that on appeal.
In the same article;
In a similar case last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision Monday that a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds was unconstitutional and must be removed.
genuineoriginal
New member
If you actually followed my argument, you would see that I am arguing that the State and local governments are incapable of violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution no matter what they do or do not do.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is very specific in prohibiting the Federal Congress from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
The only way the First Amendment could be violated in the story of the OP is if the Federal Congress made a law prohibiting the State of Kansas from putting up a picture of Jesus in a public school.
If that happened, it would be the Federal Congress that would be violating the Constitution.
Have you even read the First Amendment?
I posted it several times.
Jose Fly
New member
So let me see if I have this straight....
In a discussion of how the courts are ruling on the constitutionality of schools putting up religious displays, the fact that in this case, the court didn't even address the constitutionality of the school putting up the display "doesn't matter"?
Seriously?
No one lost. The case was dismissed due to lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs. Try and keep up.
Jose Fly
New member
And as I've noted, the courts have consistently ruled otherwise. You believe they're wrong, but that only matters to you.
Thanks for your time.
We will see what happens when it hits the supreme court. At any rate, you both wanted one that went to court, even though the op didnt make it to court, the op case would have won also based on the standing to object, just like the ten commandment case i posted.
Now if you both actually search, i wont need to keep being your secretary, there are other cases out there too.
Looks like the school did but it doesn't specify.
Also;
Looks like this is a well tread path (from the article)
They gonna lose.
Again, well see when it goes all the way. A lot of federal judges ignore the law and try to create new ones for their own reasons. Happens all the time.
Do NOT cave. Make them take you all the way to the supreme court. Raise funds if you need to, to fight for your religious freedoms and freedom of speech
Jose Fly
New member
If it goes that far. As I said, it can be tough to find people willing to subject themselves to this sort of ordeal.
Yeah, how about one where they actually ruled on the issue we're debating?
Doubtful. The judge in the other case noted that the student could only cite a couple of instances where she even saw the monument. With the OP, the Jesus painting is prominently displayed where everyone will see it, every day.
Well so far, every one you've offered up has been a bust. The cheerleaders case was about student-initiated speech, and the 10 commandments one didn't even address the legal question we're debating.
Unless you have something better, the conclusion is as I said before. There are no cases similar to the OP where the school won.
You're gonna need them.
The bill gets bigger the longer it drags out.
Also, you really think the SC that just green lighted gay marriage is gonna put a picture of Jesus up in a school?
"freedom of speech" doesn't include nailing portraits up on block walls in public buildings.
Neither does freedom of religion for that matter.