A portrait of Jesus in a school? Seriously?

[Angel4Truth]

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



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".



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.

You need to learn to read, the final decision:

A different majority held that the menorah display did not have the prohibited effect of endorsing religion, given its "particular physical setting". Its combined display with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty did not impermissibly endorse both the Christian and Jewish faiths, but simply recognized that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which, the court found, has attained a secular status in U.S. society.

Also the problem with the nativity is that this was enclosed with it:

Gloria in excelsis Deo

Alone, it would not have been an issue, like i said, the message with it, was the endorsment.

There is no message with the picture of Christ.

 

[quip]

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

Where attached to this pic is the statement that this guy is a tyrant?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Where attached to this pic is the statement that this guy is a tyrant?

Doesn't need to be, its in the law there, invalid comparison.

We are talking about the constitution and endorsement, there is no endorsement attached to the pic.

The pic alone isnt endorsing anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

You need to learn to read, the final decision

Geez, this is just like last time when you kept telling me that while at the same time not reading it yourself.

There were two displays being decided on in that case. The first was a nativity scene in the county courthouse, the second was a menorah display in front of the City Hall.

The court ruled that the nativity display was unconstitutional, whereas the menorah display wasn't. The reason was, the nativity scene was by itself with no other context, and therefore constituted a government endorsement of Christianity to the exclusion of others. OTOH, the court ruled that the menorah was constitutional because it was in the context of a larger display that included Christmas trees, festive lights, and other items.

You see the difference? When one religion's display is put up by the government with no others, it is unconstitutional. But when the same display is part of a larger display that includes other beliefs, it's fine.

Alone, it would not have been an issue, like i said, the message with it, was the endorsment.

Show me where they say that in the decision.

There is no message with the picture of Christ.

And it's not part of a larger display with other religious or historical figures, just like the nativity scene at the courthouse.

This is the reason displays around Christmas have become such a mess. In order to stay constitutional, governments must open up their spaces to people of all faiths, including those of no faith. So you end up with things like Festivus Poles, Satanic displays, Pastafarian displays, and the like.

This Jesus painting is the exact same thing. The school either has to allow paintings of other religious figures, or take the Jesus one down.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Show me where they say that in the decision.

Its right in the information YOU posted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Its right in the information YOU posted.

Where?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Where?

Read it. Im not your secretary, in fact you can find a humanist site on google also -easy- lamenting that very decision and explaining it in detail, its the addition of information on that one alone that caused the issue, because the jewish menorah was not an issue at all, when it according to you simply by existing there endorsed religion, when it didnt, and no message was attached.

Bottom line, the supreme court has held they are acceptable.

 

[Jose Fly]

Read it.

That's what I thought. It's not there, but you can't admit it either.

Bottom line, the supreme court has held they are acceptable.

???????? The SCOTUS decision was that the nativity display was unconstitutional. You know what the "un" part means, don't you?

 

[Angel4Truth]

That's what I thought. It's not there, but you can't admit it either.

If you cant bother to read what you post yourself, it says much about you, not me.

Fact, the supreme court has held they are ok to have.

 

[Jose Fly]

in fact you can find a humanist site on google also -easy- lamenting that very decision and explaining it in detail

You mean like THIS ONE?

"Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that stand-alone religious holiday displays violate the Establishment Clause. That much is clear.

Unfortunately, governments can place such displays on their property if there are sufficient “secular holiday symbols” nearby, such as snowmen, Santa Claus, and reindeer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, there must be enough of these in the display to detract “from the crèche’s religious message.”"

Huh....sounds exactly like what I've been saying. The constitutionality of the display depends on the surrounding context, namely whether it is part of a larger display that includes secular images, and/or displays from other faiths. But if it's all by itself, it's unconstitutional.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you cant bother to read what you post yourself, it says much about you, not me.

Fact, the supreme court has held they are ok to have.

Wow. This has gotten truly bizarre.

 

[Jose Fly]

The most amusing thing about this is how the Christians here are actually arguing...

"Why would anyone think a painting of Jesus is a religious image? I can't imagine why people would think such a thing!"

And that makes you wonder why so many Christians have paintings and images of Jesus up in their homes. :think:

 

[Angel4Truth]

The most amusing thing about this is how the Christians here are actually arguing...

"Why would anyone think a painting of Jesus is a religious image? I can't imagine why people would think such a thing!"

And that makes you wonder why so many Christians have paintings and images of Jesus up in their homes. :think:

You can whine all day, but no endorsement is there, with just a picture, sorry.

 

[Desert Reign]

Really? What is it with some of these school officials that they think this sort of thing is legal and acceptable?

I'm so glad you raised this as an issue. It is certainly really important and I would like to nominate you as chief watchdog for your county over all public schools and other institutions. You definitely have your priorities straight, well done!

Now then, while you are out on your rounds, where was that abortion thread I was interested in...?

 

[Desert Reign]

You see the difference? When one religion's display is put up by the government with no others, it is unconstitutional. But when the same display is part of a larger display that includes other beliefs, it's fine.

In that case, the portrait of Jesus was part of a larger display of atheist religious emptiness. All around the portrait, above, below and to both sides was nothing, a common form of depiction of atheism.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have to wonder why so many Christians are/were all worked up over the proposed monument to Satan at the Oklahoma capitol, the Pastafarian display in the Florida capitol, or the Festivus Pole in Washington.

After all, what's the big deal and/or those aren't religious displays, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

In that case, the portrait of Jesus was part of a larger display of atheist religious emptiness. All around the portrait, above, below and to both sides was nothing, a common form of depiction of atheism.

Hilarious.

 

[quip]

Doesn't need to be, its in the law there, invalid comparison.

We are talking about the constitution and endorsement, there is no endorsement attached to the pic.

The pic alone isnt endorsing anything.

Both are simply a form of suggestion/persuasion...political and religious respectively while in the USofA we (collectively) avoid conflating the two.

 

[quip]

In that case, the portrait of Jesus was part of a larger display of atheist religious emptiness. All around the portrait, above, below and to both sides was nothing, a common form of depiction of atheism.

So, you're claiming that 99.99% of our perceived reality.....is evidence in favor of atheism?

I tend to agree! :cheers:

 

[Desert Reign]

So, you're claiming that 99.99% of our perceived reality.....is evidence in favor of atheism?

I tend to agree! :cheers:

So you agree with my argument then?