Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And... Jesus is a religious figure. This is government controlling what religious figures are promoted. As one shouldn't be required to pay for services that are contrary to one's religious beliefs, one shouldn't be required to pay toward the promotion of a figure contrary to one's beliefs. In both cases this is the government forcing individuals to fund items to which they are religiously opposed.
The Constitution says that Congress can't establish a religion. This isn't an act of Congress and they aren't establishing anything. It's a local school hanging a picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KatieGal
Th portrait probably should be taken down. It is a government building and unless you want various other religious figures displayed in the school, the portrait probably should be removed. I think the only loophole might be if the actual portrait, and not the subject, has some sort of historic significance to the school.
Who cares? If a school in Dearborn, MI wants to hang a pic of muhammed because 90% of the population is muslim, I'm down with that.
Establishing and acknowledging a religion are two separate thing. Furthermore, cases such as the Hobby Lobby one show the other side of the coin were public money is being spent on things that go against Christian principles. If atheists can demand their money not be spent on anything remotely religious, why can't Christians refuse to pay taxes for things like the morning after pill?
how many religions would you like to acknowledge? Would you like to acknowledge the atheistic religion called Jainism?
This sort of thing is a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned. I really don't give a fig what bad taste someone wants to have in art. I'm an atheist and I am not offended by the omnipresence of religious iconography. I decorate my house as I see fit and whatever societal consensus says about the decor of the public school is up to society.
Full disclosure: my children are all grown, but I don't think it'd matter. Frankly I don't even remember what art was on display at my kid's schools. Look ... you have to pick your battles. Some things are controllable, some aren't. Some things that are controllable, aren't worth controlling. And do you really think your kids are going to convert to Christianity (or not deconvert from it) because a picture of Jesus hangs in the entry? I hardly think so.
The Constitution says that Congress can't establish a religion. This isn't an act of Congress and they aren't establishing anything. It's a local school hanging a picture.
The Constitution (and common civility) says that Congress can't make any laws (as in funding laws) which respect any...
Spoiler
(perhaps "individual" as interpreted by SCOTUS since they allow the vainful use of the word God in our currency and corrupted pledge of allegience)
...religious establishment (such as Christianity).
Quote:
Who cares? If a school in Dearborn, MI wants to hang a pic of muhammed because 90% of the population is muslim, I'm down with that.
I'm not. And neither would more traditional Muslims who regard pictures are slippery slopes to idolization. They can put a picture of Avecena for secular reasons, sure, or they can go ahead and privately fund their school if they want to paste the Muslim calligraphy of the Arab word Allah all over their walls.
A picture of the prophet Mohammed is not going to happen.
How about a picture of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi hanging in a prominent place in a small-town Ohio public school. You down with that?
If the majority of the people in the area are ok with it, sure. But then, I actually think the Founding Fathers got it right when they said that local government should be able to make that kind of decisions.
The Constitution says that Congress can't establish a religion. This isn't an act of Congress and they aren't establishing anything. It's a local school hanging a picture.
Nicely done, you changed the subject completely. We weren't discussing constitutionality but the fact that in both cases the government is forcing individuals to fund items that are contrary to their religions. I'm the only one consistently saying that this is wrong, in both cases. Making individuals fund birth control is not establishing religion either.
Nicely done, you changed the subject completely. We weren't discussing constitutionality but the fact that in both cases the government is forcing individuals to fund items that are contrary to their religions. I'm the only one consistently saying that this is wrong, in both cases. Making individuals fund birth control is not establishing religion either.
It's not wrong to put a picture up. That's my point. There is no prohibition of it.
This sort of thing is a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned. I really don't give a fig what bad taste someone wants to have in art. I'm an atheist and I am not offended by the omnipresence of religious iconography. I decorate my house as I see fit and whatever societal consensus says about the decor of the public school is up to society.
Full disclosure: my children are all grown, but I don't think it'd matter. Frankly I don't even remember what art was on display at my kid's schools. Look ... you have to pick your battles. Some things are controllable, some aren't. Some things that are controllable, aren't worth controlling. And do you really think your kids are going to convert to Christianity (or not deconvert from it) because a picture of Jesus hangs in the entry? I hardly think so.
Pictures of Jesus, or any other religious icon, regardless of where they're displayed, provide legitimacy to these mystical beliefs, unless the picture is captioned with a "Fictional Character" label. I see no better place to begin than places that are so instrumental in the intellectual development of our children. We need to be teaching them just the opposite, to think critically instead of following what they're programmed to believe at church, synagogue, or mosque.
So, you're OK with funding religious symbols through your tax payments?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
