Don't worry theres more...

[sub_zer0]

Last one I swear, but I had to just show you this one.

A picture depicting Jesus Christ that has hung in a West Virginia high school's halls for 30 years is the target of a lawsuit by an attorney and former teacher.

Harold Sklar, parent of a former student at Bridgeport High School in Clarksburg, W.Va., petitioned the Harrison County Board of Education to have the portrait removed, contending it violates the so-called separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, reports the West Virginia Record legal journal.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50846

[Ethos]

Is there a controversy here? An actual portrait of Jesus Christ seems a very unambiguous violation of the establishment clause.

Ethos

[Democritus]

Is there a controversy here? An actual portrait of Jesus Christ seems a very unambiguous violation of the establishment clause.

Ethos

It would depend on the context in which it is being hung. But you're probably right.

[neo of the mind]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Is this picture hanging up on the wall as a result of Congress passing a law stating that pictures of Jesus must be displayed in school buildings?

No. Therefore it does not violate the United States constitution.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Therefore it is up to the State Constituition of West Virginia as to whether this picture being displayed violates the State Constituition. If it doesn't then it's left for the people to decide. If the people of that school district don't want it displayed in the school, then via the proper means, ie. election of school board members, etc. it would be decided.

[sub_zer0]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is this picture hanging up on the wall as a result of Congress passing a law stating that pictures of Jesus must be displayed in school buildings?

No. Therefore it does not violate the United States constitution.

You are EXACTLY right, and that is the point of posting this and the reason why they want to tear the picture down is because they feel it does violate that.

You win! ;p

[Ethos]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Is this picture hanging up on the wall as a result of Congress passing a law stating that pictures of Jesus must be displayed in school buildings?

No. Therefore it does not violate the United States constitution.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Therefore it is up to the State Constituition of West Virginia as to whether this picture being displayed violates the State Constituition. If it doesn't then it's left for the people to decide. If the people of that school district don't want it displayed in the school, then via the proper means, ie. election of school board members, etc. it would be decided.

You do not understand the concepts above. For school authorities to promote the images and beliefs of a single religion is a blatant endorsement of one faith over another. The result is a violation of students' religious freedoms.

Further it is not up to a simple majority to determine these rules.


Schneider noted that even if the portrait reflected the beliefs of a majority of individuals, the United States Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in 1943 in a landmark West Virginia case that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that fundamental liberties like freedom of religion are not subject to the whims of a majority.


http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/26063prs20060628.html

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

"The result is a violation of students' religious freedoms."

.....if you consider so, but it doesn't violate the United States constituition.

I am not aware if it violates the State of West Virginia's constituition, since I have not looked it up yet.

[Art of War]

A pentagram was displayed in my highschool along with a cross as part of a student project. Within three hours of it being put up the Chicago achdiocese was on the phone demanding the pentagram be removed.

I have a question for Neo and Sub. Would you support a teacher's right to display a pentagram in his or her classroom as a symbol of their faith?

[Ethos]

"The result is a violation of students' religious freedoms."

.....if you consider so, but it doesn't violate the United States constituition.

I am not aware if it violates the State of West Virginia's constituition, since I have not looked it up yet.

Curtailing the religious freedoms of students does violate the United States Constitution. At this juncture I must point out that constitutional law and legal precedence are in agreement with this viewpoint. Your disbelief in both in no way reflects the reality of this situation, and while it is your right to disagree with these standings, you do not have the option of ignoring them.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

A pentagram was displayed in my highschool along with a cross as part of a student project. Within three hours of it being put up the Chicago achdiocese was on the phone demanding the pentagram be removed.

I have a question for Neo and Sub. Would you support a teacher's right to display a pentagram in his or her classroom as a symbol of their faith?

By stating that the achdiocese called, gives me the clue that this was a private school. A private school is different.

I have no problem with a government teacher not being told that they can not display a pentagram. It doesn't violate the 1st amendment because Congress did not pass a law that forbids or demands that citizens display them.

[neo of the mind]

Curtailing the religious freedoms of students does violate the United States Constitution. At this juncture I must point out that constitutional law and legal precedence are in agreement with this viewpoint. Your disbelief in both in no way reflects the reality of this situation, and while it is your right to disagree with these standings, you do not have the option of ignoring them.

Ethos

A picture of Jesus on a wall does not curtail anything. If there was a picture of budda on the wall, it would not curtail anything.

The legal precedence you are referring to is bogus and not based on the constituition of the United States. Yes, it is the reality that the Judicial branch of our government has made unconstituitional decisions. Yes, that is the reality, but it's also a reality that their legal decisions are not based on the constituition.

[Ethos]

A picture of Jesus on a wall does not curtail anything. If there was a picture of budda on the wall, it would not curtail anything.

The legal precedence you are referring to is bogus and not based on the constituition of the United States. Yes, it is the reality that the Judicial branch of our government has made unconstituitional decisions. Yes, that is the reality, but it's also a reality that their legal decisions are not based on the constituition.

I see. You are either unwilling or unable to understand the function of the Supreme Court as it pertains to constitutional interpretation and enforcement. It is your choice to continue a figurative covering of the ears. This has become a pointless discussion.

Ethos

[sub_zer0]

I see. You are either unwilling or unable to understand the function of the Supreme Court as it pertains to constitutional interpretation and enforcement. It is your choice to continue a figurative covering of the ears. This has become a pointless discussion.

Ethos

The supreme court is a bunch of activist judges. Except for a few.

[Sgt Schultz]

The supreme court is a bunch of activist judges. Except for a few.

I have found that those who cry "activist judge" use this definition: an activist judge is one who makes a decision I don't agree with.

[sub_zer0]

I have found that those who cry "activist judge" use this definition: an activist judge is one who makes a decision I don't agree with.

No, they make a decision that isn't in line with the constitution.

[neo of the mind]

No, they make a decision that isn't in line with the constitution.

Sub, so simple of a statement, but so true. Here is hoping that the current majority make up of the Supreme Court will be the ones to actually go by the constitution.

[Sgt Schultz]

No, they make a decision that isn't in line with the constitution.

You mean it's not in line with your interpretation of the Constitution.

[Art of War]

By stating that the achdiocese called, gives me the clue that this was a private school. A private school is different.

I have no problem with a government teacher not being told that they can not display a pentagram. It doesn't violate the 1st amendment because Congress did not pass a law that forbids or demands that citizens display them.

Nope it was a public school.

[julierep]

The result is a violation of students' religious freedoms.


Ethos

How is hanging up a picture a violation of students religious freedoms? Not allowing someone to hang up a picture of Jesus would be an example of a violation of a students religious freedoms. Hanging up the picture is not the same thing as forcing one to worship it.

[green lantern]

How is hanging up a picture a violation of students religious freedoms? Not allowing someone to hang up a picture of Jesus would be an example of a violation of a students religious freedoms. Hanging up the picture is not the same thing as forcing one to worship it.very true.

[Ethos]

How is hanging up a picture a violation of students religious freedoms? Not allowing someone to hang up a picture of Jesus would be an example of a violation of a students religious freedoms. Hanging up the picture is not the same thing as forcing one to worship it.

Not allowing a student to hang the picture would be a violation. School officials operate under different constraints. Allowing the school district or the school's Principal to hang the portrait is an endorsement of Christianity which, as I have already pointed out, is disallowed under current constitutional interpretations.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

A pentagram was displayed in my highschool along with a cross as part of a student project. Within three hours of it being put up the Chicago achdiocese was on the phone demanding the pentagram be removed.


Oh, so you say it was a public school. I think maybe we are missing some information then on the story.

Just like any organized group of people, gay groups for example, religious groups can try to influence entities by virtue of appeal.

So what was the project? Was the pentagram fused to the cross, floating in a glass of urine, sitting on top of a bowl of cow dung? Or some other very creative form of art?

[neo of the mind]

Not allowing a student to hang the picture would be a violation. School officials operate under different constraints. Allowing the school district or the school's Principal to hang the portrait is an endorsement of Christianity which, as I have already pointed out, is disallowed under current constitutional interpretations.

Ethos

Could you paste the exact words in the constitution that this interpretation is from?

[neo of the mind]

I see. You are either unwilling or unable to understand the function of the Supreme Court as it pertains to constitutional interpretation and enforcement. It is your choice to continue a figurative covering of the ears. This has become a pointless discussion.

Ethos

I understand the powers of the Judicial branch well enough. I know for one thing that they don't enforce anything. The executive branch is suposed to do that. They are to look at law, determine whether it does or doesn't contradict the Constituition as it currently is. Upon the conclusion, the law remains law or it isn't law.

[julierep]

Not allowing a student to hang the picture would be a violation.
So they are in a no win situation. Not allowing a student to hang it is a violation and so is hanging it. So what is the school to do, if this is the case?

School officials operate under different constraints. Allowing the school district or the school's Principal to hang the portrait is an endorsement of Christianity which, as I have already pointed out, is disallowed under current constitutional interpretations.

Ethos

So as long as the school district or the school principal didnt hang the picture themselves, instead allowing a student to hang it, they wouldnt be in violation of the current constitutional interpretations?

[Ethos]

So as long as the school district or the school principal didnt hang the picture themselves, instead allowing a student to hang it, they wouldnt be in violation of the current constitutional interpretations?

Yes, assuming there is no coersion involved. The Principal is obviously not allowed to tell a student to hang it for him.

Ethos

[julierep]

Yes, assuming there is no coersion involved. The Principal is obviously not allowed to tell a student to hang it for him.

Ethos

Alright, I can follow that.

[neo of the mind]

Alright, I can follow that.

Actually, no. If a student hung up a picture of Jesus on school property, she would be told to take it down or it would just be taken down by school officals. They can't say a prayer during graduation ceremonies, none alone do that.

To find a public school that actually allows for the 1st amendment rights of citizens within the school is rare.

[JoeR]

If a student hung up a picture of Jesus on school property, she would be told to take it down or it would just be taken down by school officals.

I think an exception would be made for the locker.

[Democritus]

No, they make a decision that isn't in line with the constitution.

With all due respect sub, these are 9 highly trained judges. I'm willing to trust their opinions on the constitution over almost anyone elses. Unless you have some doctorate in constitutional studies or something along those lines that you havn't mentioned?

[neo of the mind]

With all due respect sub, these are 9 highly trained judges. I'm willing to trust their opinions on the constitution over almost anyone elses. Unless you have some doctorate in constitutional studies or something along those lines that you havn't mentioned?


Oh yes, it take a lot of training to understand the complicated sentence of Amendment 1.

[neo of the mind]

Let's look at Hugo Black's comments on Everson vs Board of Education, considering this is where the "establishment clause" interpretation has been focused.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

The picture of Jesus on the wall doesn't conflict with anything he wrote, which was in regards to his interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

[JoeR]

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

Important part bolded. Note that it does not say only this.

From the article

"The Jesus portrait, which the Harrison County School District displays alone and without any broader context, is a devotional work that constitutes unconstitutional religious expression by the district," the lawsuit says. "The expenditure of public funds to maintain the Jesus portrait is unconstitutional."'

It's really an open and shut case.

[neo of the mind]

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

Important part bolded. Note that it does not say only this.

From the article

"The Jesus portrait, which the Harrison County School District displays alone and without any broader context, is a devotional work that constitutes unconstitutional religious expression by the district," the lawsuit says. "The expenditure of public funds to maintain the Jesus portrait is unconstitutional."'

It's really an open and shut case.


Open and shut case, eh. I guess it would be when you have the thinking that a constituitional law could "at least" mean, what it means. :rolleyes: So I guess you can add any meaning to it you want if you think it's open ended to any degree. The problem with that is the thing considered unconstituitional is compared with the parameters of the constituition. He can make up a thousand different scenarios but he can't make up the parameters.

The point being, the state or government HAS TO MAKE LAW for anything to be considered unconstituitional. A person hanging a picture of Jesus in a pulicly funded building is not making law. That offense can only be done by the legislature.

There is no "expenditure of public funds" to MAINTAIN the porttrait of Jesus at that school. That school is not the Louvre nor is the painting treated like the Mona Lisa. That is just an absurd basis for the lawsuit. The fact that they throw that in there shows how pathetic their argument is.

[JoeR]

A government body posting a devotional painting of Jesus is a clear example of government endorsing religion. How is it not?

[neo of the mind]

A government body posting a devotional painting of Jesus is a clear example of government endorsing religion. How is it not?


There has to be a L-A-W involved in this equation. There was no law that was passed that put that picture up on the wall.

[heel31ok]

There has to be a L-A-W involved in this equation. There was no law that was passed that put that picture up on the wall.
"congress shall make no Law..."
I guess it takes a Phd of Constitutional law to know what that really means. :rolleyes:

[JoeR]

No, there doesn't. Once the establishment clause was incorporated to the states, it applied to all of the things under the states jurisdiction. (cities, towns, schools, etc)

[heel31ok]

No, there doesn't. Once the establishment clause was incorporated to the states, it applied to all of the things under the states jurisdiction. (cities, towns, schools, etc)
congress,congress,congress.

[JoeR]

congress,congress,congress.

Government can't promote religion, schools are a part of government.

The establishment clause has almost never been interpreted as meaning only that Congress can't create a national religion.

It just grinds your gears that you can't force religion into public schools, but thats how it is.

[neo of the mind]

No, there doesn't. Once the establishment clause was incorporated to the states, it applied to all of the things under the states jurisdiction. (cities, towns, schools, etc)

Supose, for the sake of argument, that the 14th amendment applies. It would still have to be in a form of a law being passed by the government entity.

What "law" was put in place at any level in West Virginia from the State legislature all the way to the school board, that made it a requirement for that picture to be placed on that wall?


Again...the promotion of anything would have to be in the form of a LAW for you to be correct.

[JoeR]

Let's say the school decided to start having the Lord's Prayer said before every day of school. It's a decision by the school istelf, not having to do with a lawmaking body. You think that is acceptable? More importantly, you think any court would ever allow that?

[sub_zer0]

Supose, for the sake of argument, that the 14th amendment applies. It would still have to be in a form of a law being passed by the government entity.

What "law" was put in place at any level in West Virginia from the State legislature all the way to the school board, that made it a requirement for that picture to be placed on that wall?

Good point, there wasn't one, so it isn't a violation. This is one of the biggest myths of America, that there needs to be a seperation of church and state.

It doesn't even say those words in the constitution and major media rarely states what it actually does say.

[neo of the mind]

"It just grinds your gears that you can't force religion into public schools, but thats how it is."

Christians don't want to force our religion on anyone...you can't force people to believe. What we want is that the Constituition be followed and not subverted.

[sub_zer0]

"It just grinds your gears that you can't force religion into public schools, but thats how it is."

Cristians don't want to force our religion on anyone...you can't force people to believe. What we want is that the Constituition be followed and not subverted.

Thank you!

[neo of the mind]

Let's say the school decided to start having the Lord's Prayer said before every day of school. It's a decision by the school istelf, not having to do with a lawmaking body. You think that is acceptable? More importantly, you think any court would ever allow that?


Well, I am going outside of what I firmly believe, in that the scope of what we are talking about would be applicable to a public schools "rules", but for the sake of argument....It would not be acceptable by me that the Lord's prayer be a part of the "rules" and that student's are compelled to follow that "rule".

If a teacher, outside of any school "rules" wanted to say out loud the Lord's Prayer during class or on the property for that matter, I don't see that as a violation of the constituition. "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

[JoeR]

I geuss it all comes down to whether or not you think the Constitution should be read literally. I think there is more to it than just the words on the page.

[heel31ok]

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you think the Constitution should be read literally. I think there is more to it than just the words on the page.
so it should move with the will of the peolple and reflect current philosophies and enlightment?