Yeah the Jews aren't big on Jesus. They believe that he was a false messiah who led people astray. She was right about how Muslims view him though. He's second only to Mohammed
A portrait of Jesus in a school? Seriously?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Yeah the Jews aren't big on Jesus. They believe that he was a false messiah who led people astray. She was right about how Muslims view him though. He's second only to Mohammed
Lol. Portraits of Jesus always show him as a European white man instead of what he really was
PureX
Well-known member
We could explain it to you, but we know you won't listen to anything we say. So I don't see why any of us should bother. Do you?
So a picture of Jesus might be offensive to Jews then.
He did sort of high jack their religion.
And yet putting up a picture of Mohammed doesn't ever seem to help anything...........
White hippie Jesus needs a haircut and a tan.
So white hippie Jesus might be offensive to Semitic people as he's high jacking their history and culture.
I mean maybe. But that's not really why the portrait should be taken down.
Jose Fly
New member
It constitutes a government endorsement of a religion.
genuineoriginal
New member
I don't believe you can explain it.
The words of the Amendment are very clear.
The prohibition is solely on the Federal Congress to prevent the Federal Congress from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion or that abridges the freedom of speech.
Your objections are about a Kansas school (not the Federal Congress) hanging a picture (not making a law prohibiting anything).
Only the Federal Congress can violate the First Amendment, and it can only do so by passing a law prohibiting any of the things that are enumerated in the First Amendment.
genuineoriginal
New member
So what?
A State government endorsing a religion is not prohibited by the Constitution.
The State retains that right, as noted in the Tenth Amendment.
That actually might be true
PureX
Well-known member
Like I said, there's no point in explaining it to you, because you aren't going to listen to anything we say. You've already made up your mind. So your question is disingenuous. You don't want an explanation, you just want an excuse to argue.
And you just want any excuse to post a naked lady and this isnt the first time.
Jose Fly
New member
Our court system has ruled otherwise on multiple occasions.
genuineoriginal
New member
I want you to do the mental exercise of trying to come up with an explanation so you can find out for yourself that your objection is without merit.
genuineoriginal
New member
Then they should be impeached for failure to apply the law.
Jose Fly
New member
You should get started then. :up:
Apply it how you want it applied, you mean?
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, I want them to apply the First Amendment as it is written and according to the intent of the writers of the First Amendment.
Why wouldn't I want that?
Why wouldn't you want that?
There are limitations on the first amendment, obviously. Everyone knows that you can't yell "fire" in a theater. Is that a misapplication as well?