A portrait of Jesus in a school? Seriously?

[Jose Fly]

There is no legal issue of having a picture,

Yes there is. It's why an Ohio school district settled out of court and took down the exact same painting on the advice of their lawyers. Their lawyers told them very clearly that they would lose in court.

congress made a law for the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, which is why Christmas is a federally recognized holiday.

So your reasoning here is, "Congress made Christmas a federal holiday, therefore all government endorsement of Christianity is legal"?

 

[shagster01]

How is a picture endorsement of a religion, do you believe the picture alone can cause one to become a christian?

Would you be mad if they had simply hung a picture of Muhammad up instead?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes there is. It's why an Ohio school district settled out of court and took down the exact same painting on the advice of their lawyers. Their lawyers told them very clearly that they would lose in court.



So your reasoning here is, "Congress made Christmas a federal holiday, therefore all government endorsement of Christianity is legal"?

Saying happy birthday, isnt endorsement of religion, neither is a picture.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Would you be mad if they had simply hung a picture of Muhammad up instead?

No, but muslims would be, since a picture of muhammad is a death sentence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Would you be mad if they had simply hung a picture of Muhammad up instead?

What about Joseph Smith? Or Satan?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes there is. It's why an Ohio school district settled out of court and took down the exact same painting on the advice of their lawyers. Their lawyers told them very clearly that they would lose in court.

What a lawyer says and a real legal issue, arent always the same thing, them caving, isnt a precendent, they would not have lost over a picture.

So your reasoning here is, "Congress made Christmas a federal holiday, therefore all government endorsement of Christianity is legal"?

No my reasoning is that Jesus Christ was a real person, and a picture of Him doesn't endorse religion any more than a picture of ghandi endorses hinduism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Saying happy birthday, isnt endorsement of religion

Never said it was.

neither is a picture.

In this case, it clearly is.

 

[Jose Fly]

What a lawyer says and a real legal issue, arent always the same thing, them caving, isnt a precendent, they would not have lost over a picture.

Yes they would have.

No my reasoning is that Jesus Christ was a real person, and a picture of Him doesn't endorse religion any more than a picture of ghandi endorses hinduism.

Is Ghandi the central deity of Hinduism?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Never said it was.



In this case, it clearly is.

No, it never is, when standing alone. What was added that said He was God, or that you had to worship Him or that He is the one true way?

 

[shagster01]

What about Joseph Smith? Or Satan?

Yes. Better examples.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Is Ghandi the central deity of Hinduism?

Now you are starting to learn, where attached to the pic, is the statement that Jesus is God?

 

[Bright Raven]

Yes there is. It's why an Ohio school district settled out of court and took down the exact same painting on the advice of their lawyers. Their lawyers told them very clearly that they would lose in court.



So your reasoning here is, "Congress made Christmas a federal holiday, therefore all government endorsement of Christianity is legal"?

You're just a silly old non-theist.

 

[Jose Fly]

What was added that said He was God, or that you had to worship Him or that He is the one true way?

Not needed. Jesus Christ is the central deity figure of Christianity, correct?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Not needed. Jesus Christ is the central deity figure of Christianity, correct?

Irrelevant to a picture sitting there without a message attached. Just as it is not endorsement to say happy birthday Jesus.

 

[Jose Fly]

Irrelevant to a picture sitting there without a message attached. Just as it is not endorsement to say happy birthday Jesus.

Try that in court and tell me how it goes. My bet is, just like in Ohio, the school will take the painting down.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's no explicit message attached to a nativity scene, yet the courts have ruled that governments exclusively putting them up is unconstitutional.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Not needed. Jesus Christ is the central deity figure of Christianity, correct?

I believe Jesus is God yes, some people believe that He wasnt, and some people believe He was just a great teacher, belief about who Christ is, varies, now again, where attached to that pic alone, is a statement maintaining who He is theologically?

That is what would need to be there, for the pic to endorse religion. Even jews who do not believe in Him for salvation and do not believe He is the son of God, believe He existed and was merely a teacher, muslims do not believe He is God, etc..

So Does Christ endorse judaism and islam?

 

[Angel4Truth]

There's no explicit message attached to a nativity scene, yet the courts have ruled that governments exclusively putting them up is unconstitutional.

Name a federal precedent, saying a nativity is unconstitutional, since the celebration of the birth of Christ is a federal holiday.

Id like to see this. Good luck.

PS locals caving isnt a precedent.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe Jesus is God yes, some people believe that He wasnt, and some people believe He was just a great teacher, belief about who Christ is, varies, now again, where attached to that pic alone, is a statement maintaining who He is theologically?

The same can be said about a painting of Satan at the entrance to a school.

That is what would need to be there, for the pic to endorse religion.

Nope. Legal precedent says otherwise. That's why a school can't put a cross or Star of David on its roof and argue "There's no message there, so it's fine".

Name a federal precedent, saying a nativity is unconstitutional

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union

"the majority held that the County of Allegheny violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a crèche in the county courthouse, because the "principle or primary effect" of the display was to advance religion within the meaning of Lemon v. Kurtzman, when viewed in its overall context."

Just like the Jesus painting, when it's by itself with no other context, it is unconstitutional.

 

[quip]

No my reasoning is that Jesus Christ was a real person, and a picture of Him doesn't endorse religion any more than a picture of ghandi endorses hinduism.

Then you've no problem taking the picture down?