Yes and no.
It seems we have a differing take on "emptiness".
(I'll take your lack of direct response to my question as an assent to it. Yes?)
A portrait of Jesus in a school? Seriously?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Yes and no.
It seems we have a differing take on "emptiness".
(I'll take your lack of direct response to my question as an assent to it. Yes?)
PureX
Well-known member
Of course it is. The choice of icon, and the act of putting it up is in itself an "endorsement", as there was no other religious, or even secular icon there.
shagster01
New member
Then what is the point of it?
Whats the point of any picture being up?
Also, jews recognize Jesus, call Him a teacher, muslims recognize Jesus, call Him a prophet, other religions recognize Jesus and so do non believers who call Him a great teacher, so tell me by just a picture, what religion is being endorsed with no comment other than a picture?
Weird to have what many call a teacher in a school, right?
Christianity?
Since you see a picture of Him and recognize Him as the Christ, why do you call yourself a Buddhist? Apparantly a picture can cause YOU to convert, right?
Because growing up in (Middle) America I was inundated with such public displays. (Living under its confining influence)
As an adult I've critically examined those influences (who hold such action as heretical) and concluded they were not right for me. If Christianity's dogma expressed a similar latitude...I wouldn't be so adamant against such displays. As it stands.....
In other words, a picture doesn't cause conversion. You just don't like it.
No more or less than McDonald's advertisements cause me to eat hamburgers....though I don't see such much in the way of their marketing plan exclusively expressed within government-run structures.
MarcATL
New member
That's what's do hypocritical about all these self-proclaimed Christians, they would have fits and coniptions if it was done by other beliefs. e.g. Islamic or Satanists.
They'd quickly get laws to ban it. It's been done before, in modern times to boot.
MarcATL
New member
It's this blatant and wilful dishonesty and their willingness to reduce themselves to using petty and pedantic tricks in order "to win" that galls me about these rightwing self-proclaimed Christians.
It's sickening!
Yes, the reason was to protect the church, not the state.
oatmeal
Well-known member
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?
of course, it is legal and acceptable.
Why wouldn't it be?
Suppose the school decided to replace it with a picture of vishnu or some other religion's deity. Would you be ok with it?
MarcATL
New member
Actually, it was to protect both.
I don't think this is that big of a deal, but yes it does violate the Constitution and if somebody takes issue with it then they have every legal right to remove it.
What would be far more hilarious is if they decided to keep it and put a picture of Mohammed up beside Jesus. Inclusive, yet offensive
What would be far more hilarious is if they decided to keep it and put a picture of Mohammed up beside Jesus. Inclusive, yet offensive
genuineoriginal
New member
Could you explain how Kansas school hanging a picture on a wall is a violation of "[Federal] Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]. . . [or] abridging the freedom of speech"?
Maybe the FFRF Staff Attorney didn't actually read the First Amendment.
News Flash;
The Jews had him crucified for Blasphemy.
HisServant
New member
Doesn't look like Jesus to me (not Semitic enough).