ACLU sues to force removal of Ohio middle school’s 65-year-old Jesus portrait

Hi Jennifer,

 

It is amazing how just a painting of Jesus Christ or a cross really scares the peedoodle out of atheists!   My Friend, I promise -- it will not bite!

 

But, one day YOU WILL stand before the real Jesus Christ and account for your life on earth.  Now, that is what should scare the peedoodle out of an atheist, not a painting.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

It seems that some people just can't stand the thought or sight of anything related to God or to Christ so they have to try and try to eliminate all things that remind them or indicate God to them.  This picture is just a good example.  Here you have a painting that can't be of the real Christ for no one knows what Christ actually looks like.  I still believe and think that all this goes back to that inner longing that all created creatures have to know their creator and no matter how much you try and try to kill that instinct and try to eliminate God it is and will always be impossible.

 

No matter how hard you try to say there is no God and pretend there is no God and base your faith in Science or whatever the fact that God IS continues to burn within your mind and your soul and the end result is frustration and anger that you cannot get rid of God.  That's why a lot of people are angry and full of rage when it comes to anything Religious because try as they may that longing and that void will not go away. 

 

So go ahead and strive to remove all pictures and get rid of all symbolism of God but God will always be there and even though you say He doesn't exist when we all enter that next realm of life/existence we will, as Bill says, face the creator and all answer for what opportunities we were presented with and for the choices we make with regards to our relationship with God or lack of it.  At least that is my own opinion and belief.

It seems that some people just can't stand the thought or sight of anything related to God or to Christ so they have to try and try to eliminate all things that remind them or indicate God to them.  This picture is just a good example.  Here you have a painting that can't be of the real Christ for no one knows what Christ actually looks like

=================

Such a silly post. Amazing what you think other people are thinking.  You did get one thing right, even if by accident. No one can say what a picture of your mythical jesus should look like, and it's silly to hang a picture, call it a picture of your jesus, and cry if someone makes you take it down.

best you are about as silly as fat-ass baldguy. lol

Get over it, you theocrats.  The painting IS unconstitutional! It does constitute a state  endorsement of one religion.  The FFRF will win this one. The Supreme Court long ago settled such issues.  Get over it.

conten, a painting is unconstitutional? how is that?

___

Come ON, Quaildog!  A painting is not just colors spread and layered upon a canvas.  A painting of Jesus is a statement about those GOVERNMENT officials  who authorized it to be displayed in a public building. It constitutes their singular endorsement of a particular religion.   If you do not understand why THAT is unconstitutional, then you really need do study the Constitution in greater depth than the depth to which you have studied it to date.

A Christian influence in a public school is obviously in violation of the First Amendment.

 

Who does not see this?

 

Wack Fundamentalists, that's who.  This is just another reason why they should be ostracized and discounted among educated people.

 

It may be a generational effort, but it's worthwhile.  And it starts now.

 

DF

So tell us just HOW this painting is unconstitutional?  Remember that the Constitution is a Federal document and while States do sign on to it and agree to abide by it they do so in those areas that are directed to the States such as transferring criminals across boundaries and adhering to Federal Law and other measures.  The First amendment specifically addresses CONGRESS.  Just where do you get anything in that which would be binding to a State Government or Local Government?  

 

So tell us HOW is this Unconstitutional?   How, in any way, is Congress involved in the hanging or display of this painting?

Unless you want to Federalize every public School then the First Amendment should have no effect or basis in the argument.  Each district, State, Local Government should have their own freedom to do whatever they wish with regard to what religious paintings are hanging on their walls or of what Religious symbolism they permit.  The whole idea of Federalizing Schools or having the Federal Government in and over Schools is unconstitutional itself for our Constitution and it's writers never envisioned or meant for the Federal Government to have any control over the Schools. 

 

IF that is wrong then please correct me by demonstrating to me where the Constitution meant for the Federal Government to be in control and involved in Education?  Education was to be controlled at the State and local levels, I suggest.  The First Amendment was to bridle and apply to Congress and the Federal Government not to make any laws with respect of any Religion but also the other part of that equation, one that seems forgotten is:

or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof

I subject that although it isn't written in there it's easy enough to understand that what the meaning is ... is free exercise of religion.  Why do so many insist on taking something that is meant and directed to the Federal Government and specifically CONGRESS and making application to everything but the Federal Government?

Also, just out of curiosity, just what do you envision the statement .... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .. to constitute?

Sorry but I'm with the law on this one. What if it were a big picture of Mohammed? Would y'all be ok with that too? A government funded public school just cannot have a portrait of Jesus. Nor can they pray the "our father". That's just the way it is. Don't like it!? Send your kids to Christian school. But I'd be ****ed if there was a Buddha portrait or a pagan image on my child's school wall. Can't have it both ways....

Don't forget, this is the world "we" created- political correctness.

Best it was just an example. We all know people would flip out if there were a mural of pagan gods in a public institution.

I deleted the post, it didn't "come across" the way I meant it. 

============

Of course they would flip out. I think it's interesting how some berate one group for what they call worshiping an object, yet get bent out of shape when someone else has a problem with a picture, or an object taken from other religions, that those same people seem to worship. A mural of ALL the gods people believe, used to believe, exists/existed, along with a brief description of those gods, wouldn't, imo, be such a bad idea. But of course that would go over like a lead balloon.

I agree with Vplee - the law has it on this one.  If a public school wants to display Christian art, then they have to display art from all religions, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.   If it were a private Christian school, then they could display it.     

I think Jesus would probably rather be in people's hearts, not in a picture on a wall anyway. JMHO

contendah, would a painting of a nude woman hanging in the school be un-constitutional?

 

you must accept my correction and move on. the painting in-itself is not un-con nor where it hangs makes it so. no different than the picture of a whig hanging there.

***********

I can only barely bring myself to continue this dialog with you, Qualidog.  Your arguments are predicated upon illogical premises. This particular painting of Jesus is not to be considered in the abstract, but within the context of its particular use in the situation described above. Until you can understand and accept that, we have absolutely no common ground upon which to debate the matter.

SEZcontendah: :" but within the context of its particular use in the situation described above"

 

conten you barely  rate on the goofy scale on this position. you need to recant and be a big boy about being wrong.

Also, just out of curiosity, just what do you envision the statement .... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .. to constitute?

================

True or not-You can build churches on every corner, you can gather at those churches every day/week/hour/second, and go over and over and over the bible with like minded people. You can discuss it in your home, stand on street corners holding signs, gather at parks, have all sorts of religious themed shows on TV where you can beg for even more of that tax exempt money to build even more of those churches.

You can have thousands upon thousands of sites on the internet to exercise your right to worship, preach, beg for more tax exempt money. You can come on a newspaper forum and make thread after thread and rambling repetitive posts  "playing preacher" and talking about your god. You can bow your head and pray anywhere you want to pray, at any time, any day. You can accost people on the street, anywhere, any time, any day, and hand out religious materials, and/or offer to tell them about your god, and why only your way of believing/worshiping, is the right one, and if they say they're not interested you can yell at them and tell them they need to "repent". 

You can ring people's doorbells any place, any day, and if they're willing, speak to them about your god, or sell them your religious material. You can build private schools and teach/tell the children all about your god. You can use your churches to tell people who to vote for. You can use your churches to belittle and urge oppression of other people. 

  You can build and visit "religious" theme parks and label them as such. We could go on and on but that wouldn't stop the whining.