And
So the Van Orden case had the advantage of being amoung other monuments.
Like we already figured out, if they just put up more portraits they could have got by.
A portrait of Jesus in a school? Seriously?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
And
So the Van Orden case had the advantage of being amoung other monuments.
Like we already figured out, if they just put up more portraits they could have got by.
Jose Fly
New member
I'm sure their lawyers told them something like that too. If they'd include the painting along with others of say....MLK, Gandhi, Confucius, George Washington...they could argue the Jesus painting was merely part of a larger display of great historical figures or something.
But I doubt the Christians at the school really wanted Jesus portrayed in that light (as just another historical figure). And that would only further expose the true intent behind putting up the painting in the first place.
genuineoriginal
New member
So, your argument is that the courts can and do violate the constitution, so it doesn't matter what the constitution actually says?
Jose Fly
New member
Doesn't matter, the reasoning it was allowed wasnt because other monuments existed, it was because it had basis in law, in other words secular appeal not only religious.
Non believers recognize Jesus, as do people of other faiths, they just call Him something different than a christian does, as such the same reasoning applies here.
the issue with your nativtity was the message attached, the song attached called Him God, with no message other than a pic, there is no establishment.
FFRF demands removal of Jesus portrait from Kan. school
Here's the picture....
Really? What is it with some of these school officials that they think this sort of thing is legal and acceptable? Are they that clueless about the law, or are they Christian theocrats who don't care about the law in the first place?
Either way, why are such idiots in charge of public education?
I have never liked Warner Sallman's iconic portrait of Jesus. First of all, he looks like a cocker spaniel or else a first-century rabbi who covers his face and forehead with Vaseline to make them shiny and holy.
Since Jesus was a party animal and a socially promiscuous sort of guy, I've always liked THIS picture:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...g..0.14.324.KfDRdeeHCvs#imgrc=CS8A5P5OsXpH_M:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is truly sad that an exclusive focus on Jesus and a moral Christian life is so disruptive and alarming for TheologyOnline.
Shame on TOL for banning voices they don't agree with! The mark of any tyranny is the inability to deal with diversity. It is only the dictatorial, authoritarian who look at any challenge to their autocratic rules as dangerous and in need of annihilation.
The victimization, the anger covering up shame and the immaturity of most folks on this website is truly astonishing to me.
Nevertheless, I will continue to stress the authentic parabolic teachings of Jesus as well as connecting myself and the world to the great moral epic of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
keypurr
Well-known member
Oh no, all this time I thought it was a photo of him.
Cruciform
New member
Why is it somehow supposedly wrong to display of picture of this particular historical figure, but somehow acceptable to hang an image of, say, Abraham Lincoln?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Because a picture of Abraham Lincoln isn't a violation of the 2nd commandment
http://www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/lords-days/35.html
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Yes. Amen. THIS is why it should be taken down. Fighting to keep this up not only opens the door for pluralism, but its also idolatrous. Even if pictures of Muhammad and Buddha are not similarly allowed, the very presence of an "image of Christ" is an idol.
Jose Fly
New member
I just quoted from the page you linked to where it says the fact that the monument was part of a larger display was a significant factor.
You are so desperate to not concede a single thing that now you're even waving away your own sources! Unbelievable.
Jose Fly
New member
Because Jesus is the central figure, and deity of Christianity. It's no different than if the school had put up a painting of the Buddha, Joseph Smith, or Satan.
Cruciform
New member
Satan isn't a historical human being. Jesus, Buddha, and Joseph Smith, however, are just as historical---and historically important---as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, George Washington, or Albert Einstein. Your double standard is noted.
Cruciform
New member
Neither is a picture of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Jose Fly
New member
Yet Jesus is the only one whose painting is up in the school. Funny that. Oh, but I'm sure if the school had put up a painting of Joseph Smith and no one else, none of you fundie Christians would ever think for one second that it had anything at all to do with Mormonism.
If they also have pictures of other historical religious leaders of other faiths, probably not illegal.
If not...
If not...
Cruciform
New member
Is the choice you're offering here really between hanging one picture vs. hanging pictures of all known historical figures?
Sorry, I left behind "fundie Christianity" in order to become a Catholic Christian.
Of course it would have to do with Mormonism, just as a picture of George Washington would have to do with 18th-century Protestant deism, and as a picture of Charles Darwin would have to do with 19th-century agnosticism. None of this, however, negates the fact that these are all historical figures.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Jose Fly
New member
Drop your black/white thinking, it's not healthy.
Believe it or not, there is space between "one painting of a historical figure" and "paintings of every historical figure that's ever existed". :duh:
I've known plenty of fundamentalist Catholics.
Exactly, just as the painting of Jesus has to do with Christianity.
Are you kidding me? You're actually arguing that a painting of George Washington would primarily be about Protestant deism? That's what most reasonable observers would think upon seeing the painting?
Every time I think the Christians at ToL can't get more ridiculous, you guys crank it up to 11.
Jose Fly
New member
Probably not, but as I said earlier, I don't think the folks who support this painting want Jesus depicted as merely one of many historical figures. They want exclusivity.
Cruciform
New member
Is your statement that I should "drop my black/white thinking" itself to be taken in a black/white manner?
Depends on precisely how you define the term "fundamentalist," doesn't it. The term is hardly self-evident.
You're smuggling in terms, concepts, and question-begging principles now.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+