http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/07/ohio-school-district-agrees-to-keep-portrait-jesus-off-wall-pay-5g-fine/?intcmp=trendingI do not want Christian Bashing or atheist bashing... I would just like to have the answer to a very simple question.... For the most part this is directed toward the athiests, and others of anti Christian feelings
In the second paragraph of the article, it says in part...
citing unconstitutional actions and charging that students and visitors to the school will continue to suffer permanent, severe and irreparable harm and injury, according to the lawsuit.
I understand that the above is Legal jargon...
(1) BUT do any of those that I mentioned above actually feel this way if they see a picture of Jesus?
(2) Does a picture of Jesus constitute a sponsoring of a particular religion....?
(3) If you walked into the school your child or grand children attended and there was a picture of Lenin hanging on the wall. Would it mean that the school was Sponsoring Socialism?
I will not be answering any of the responses... I am just interested in the feelings of those on the forum..
Thanks Mike
I am secure enough in my own religion, that displays of other religions do not bother me, or incite me to get angry, unless of course, innocent people are harmed.
thats minor!
how about this one...
"Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government grant in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
From the article:
"The picture had been hanging in Jacksons high school since 1947 as part of a Hall of Honor display meant to highlight famous historical figures."
It was not "establishing a religion".
I would like to know who else was up there.
Why isn't the ACLU going after Obama for saying "God bless America"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyeLMNIyIrIDo they have any photos of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a preacher.
How about Rev. Jesse Jackson?
It is not a picture of Jesus because there are not any.
No one really knows what he looked like.
venturer9 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/07/ohio-school-district-agrees-to-keep-portrait-jesus-off-wall-pay-5g-fine/?intcmp=trending
I do not want Christian Bashing or atheist bashing... I would just like to have the answer to a very simple question.... For the most part this is directed toward the athiests, and others of anti Christian feelings
In the second paragraph of the article, it says in part...
citing unconstitutional actions and charging that students and visitors to the school will continue to suffer permanent, severe and irreparable harm and injury, according to the lawsuit.
I understand that the above is Legal jargon...
(1) BUT do any of those that I mentioned above actually feel this way if they see a picture of Jesus?
(2) Does a picture of Jesus constitute a sponsoring of a particular religion....?
(3) If you walked into the school your child or grand children attended and there was a picture of Lenin hanging on the wall. Would it mean that the school was Sponsoring Socialism?
I will not be answering any of the responses... I am just interested in the feelings of those on the forum..
Thanks Mike
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/07/ohio-school-d... (
show quote)
I believe that a picture of Jesus 'could' constitute a sponsoring of the Christian religion if that is the only religious icon depicted. Is a list of the 'historical figures' that were displayed available? Was it the schools intent to 'establish' a religion? I doubt it.
Was Moses who gave us the 10 commandments depicted? Was Mohammed? Buddha? A picture depicting the accepted artist's rendition of Jesus as a
stand-alone piece in a
public school would concern me as would a Cross, a Star of David or a swastika. That is not the place and would seem to be an endorsement of that particular religion or belief.
As to the statement will continue to suffer permanent, severe and irreparable harm and injury" is total nonsense and a ploy by attorneys in an attempt to get the maximim compensatory damages. I think the ACLU should have paid their own attorneys fees for instituting such a frivilous lawsuit. As usual, the lawyers walk away with their pockets jingling at the expense of the tax payer.
JR1
Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK
Do you MEAN athiests or Agnostics
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.