ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting

[OzmO]

I allways thought the only major difference between Fallwell and Khomeini was - clothing, hairstyle and language.

don't forget deodorant   

[Eyeball Chambers]

For a while there, he mentioned them just about every other post, ...even posted their weblink within the forum a few times. 

I remember that... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA WTF? HAHAHAHA

[Decker]

This is a ridiculous case.  Religious proponents pull crap like this all the time.  Remember when some judge had a 10 commandments monument put in his courthouse?  It's a cloddish publicity stunt.  It's so obvious that it's juvenile.

The people that put up these religious idols and symbols know that they are violating the law but they do it anyways for two reasons:

1.  It bolsters the 'victim' status of certain religious groups so that they can cry "bias" and "discrimination".

2.  The publicity casts a dim light on the ACLU even though it is in the right.

[Dos Equis]

I think it's ridiculous too, but for a different reason.  This isn't the Ten Commandments.  It's artwork.  The painting has been hanging for nearly ten years.  One dummy is offended and in comes the anti-religious extremists crying foul.  It is a waste of our tax dollars.   

[Decker]

I think it's ridiculous too, but for a different reason.  This isn't the Ten Commandments.  It's artwork.  The painting has been hanging for nearly ten years.  One dummy is offended and in comes the anti-religious extremists crying foul.  It is a waste of our tax dollars.   

The rules re religious idols/icons in public venues is well established and long standing.  Blame the guy hanging the art and not those taking the legally correct action.

But I do understand your frustration.

[Colossus_500]

Consider this now a near "slam-dunk" case for the defense.  The ADF has OWNED the ACLU in every case that it represents a client against the anti-Christian machine.

ADF attorneys will defend city of Slidell against ACLU attack on painting in rural La. courthouse
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 11:16 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

SLIDELL, La. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have agreed to represent the city of Slidell and the parish of St. Tammany against the latest ACLU attack in Louisiana.  In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, the ACLU seeks the removal of a courthouse lobby painting containing messages regarding equality and justice under the law because the painting is believed to depict an image of Jesus Christ.

“The First Amendment allows public officials, and not the ACLU, to decide what is appropriate for acknowledging our nation’s religious history and heritage.  The painting clearly delivers an inclusive message of equal justice under the law,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson.  “It is mind-boggling that the ACLU would oppose such a widely cherished idea simply because it is offended by the image in the painting.”

“The ideas expressed in this painting aren’t specific to any one faith, and they certainly don’t establish a single state religion,” Johnson explained.  “The reason Americans enjoy equal justice is because we are all ‘created equal, endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights.’  This painting is a clear reflection of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence.”

In a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist confirmed, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause….  Examples of monuments and buildings reflecting the prominent role of religion abound.  For example, the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials all contain explicit invocations of God’s importance.  The apex of the Washington Monument is inscribed ‘Laus Deo,’ which is translated to mean ‘Praise be to God,’ and multiple memorial stones in the monument contain Biblical citations.”

“Using the same arguments it brings to Slidell, will the ACLU advocate sandblasting the walls and halls of our nation’s capitol, including the chambers of the Supreme Court?” Johnson asked.

Recently, in another ADF-defended case, the ACLU had called for school board members in Tangipahoa Parish to be jailed for failing to prevent a student from praying at a school event and soon after compared those school board members to the 9/11 hijackers.  Following Hurricane Katrina, the ACLU threatened to file suit to block a privately funded memorial on private ground because it included a cross.

 

[Dos Equis]

The rules re religious idols/icons in public venues is well established and long standing.  Blame the guy hanging the art and not those taking the legally correct action.

But I do understand your frustration.

There is no established rule that bans religious expression or artwork from public property.  From the post by Colossus:

In a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist confirmed, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause….  Examples of monuments and buildings reflecting the prominent role of religion abound.  For example, the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials all contain explicit invocations of God’s importance.  The apex of the Washington Monument is inscribed ‘Laus Deo,’ which is translated to mean ‘Praise be to God,’ and multiple memorial stones in the monument contain Biblical citations.”

[Decker]

There is no established rule that bans religious expression or artwork from public property.  From the post by Colossus:

In a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist confirmed, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause….  Examples of monuments and buildings reflecting the prominent role of religion abound.  For example, the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials all contain explicit invocations of God’s importance.  The apex of the Washington Monument is inscribed ‘Laus Deo,’ which is translated to mean ‘Praise be to God,’ and multiple memorial stones in the monument contain Biblical citations.”

Rhenquists' dicta is not determinative.  There are multiple tests with multiple prongs that may be applied.

Portraits of Jesus Christ
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not use history to justify a portrait of Jesus Christ that had been hanging in the hallway outside the principal’s office in the Bloomingdale (Mich.) Secondary School for 30 years. In Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools (1994), a student at the school sued, alleging the display of Warner Sallman’s portrait, “Head of Christ,” violated the establishment clause. The U.S. District Court found the display to violate all three prongs of the Lemon test, and the 6th Circuit agreed, saying “[t]he school has not come up with a secular purpose. The portrait advances religion. Its display entangles the government with religion.” The defendants argued that the portrait “has meaning to all religions and that it is not inherently a symbol of Christianity.” The 6th Circuit disagreed, acknowledging that the outcome of the case would be different if the school had included other symbols of world religions on the wall, “ut Christ is central only to Christianity, and his portrait has a proselytizing, affirming effect that some non-believers find deeply offensive.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/..%5C/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=public_displays

I just don't see the secular purpose of Christ forking over the New Testament while brandishing the statement equating truth with the bible.  "The portrait advances religion."

[Dos Equis]

Rhenquists' dicta is not determinative.  There are multiple tests with multiple prongs that may be applied.

Portraits of Jesus Christ
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not use history to justify a portrait of Jesus Christ that had been hanging in the hallway outside the principal’s office in the Bloomingdale (Mich.) Secondary School for 30 years. In Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools (1994), a student at the school sued, alleging the display of Warner Sallman’s portrait, “Head of Christ,” violated the establishment clause. The U.S. District Court found the display to violate all three prongs of the Lemon test, and the 6th Circuit agreed, saying “[t]he school has not come up with a secular purpose. The portrait advances religion. Its display entangles the government with religion.” The defendants argued that the portrait “has meaning to all religions and that it is not inherently a symbol of Christianity.” The 6th Circuit disagreed, acknowledging that the outcome of the case would be different if the school had included other symbols of world religions on the wall, “ut Christ is central only to Christianity, and his portrait has a proselytizing, affirming effect that some non-believers find deeply offensive.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/..%5C/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=public_displays

I just don't see the secular purpose of Christ forking over the New Testament while brandishing the statement equating truth with the bible.  "The portrait advances religion."

I'm weighing an opinion from the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court against some judge on "the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."  Doesn't seem like much of a contest.    

I think Rehnquist was correct:  the First Amendment isn't about removing all religious expression from the public sector. 

[OzmO]

i agree religion has no place in a courtroom or a state/federal building.  But i agree it's a waste of time and money to try and get every state & federal building free from the stuff.

If it offends someone they need to use a pole vault and get over it.

[Decker]

I'm weighing an opinion from the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court against some judge on "the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."  Doesn't seem like much of a contest.    

I think Rehnquist was correct:  the First Amendment isn't about removing all religious expression from the public sector. 

hahaha....I'm not playing dualing judiciaries, I just picked a pre-written excerpt to show my point.  This is one area of law that I find rather tedious.  Too many tests and too many topics. 

I just don't want to see the bleeding heart of Christ hanging on the courtroom wall.  That always makes me think of the Blues Brothers when the boys go to visit the penguin...

[Dos Equis]

hahaha....I'm not playing dualing judiciaries, I just picked a pre-written excerpt to show my point.  This is one area of law that I find rather tedious.  Too many tests and too many topics. 

I just don't want to see the bleeding heart of Christ hanging on the courtroom wall.  That always makes me think of the Blues Brothers when the boys go to visit the penguin...

   Definitely tedious.  Part of that is the result of people running around the country trying to sniff out religious expression on public property.  We had a guy here who would literally scour the island for symbols and was successful at least once:

Kolekole Pass cross ordered dismantled

The Army says that fighting
a lawsuit against the religious icon
is too costly and impractical
By Gregg K. Kakesako
Star-Bulletin


Citing the severe economic impact in maintaining the 35-year-old, 35-ton white steel cross at Schofield Barrack's Kolekole Pass, the Army today ordered it dismantled.

The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers' dollars in 1962, was a "blatant and obvious violation" of the First Amendment.

Maj. Gen. James T. Hill, 25th Infantry Division and U.S. Army Hawaii commander, said cost and practicality in fighting the lawsuit were reasons for taking down the cross.

Evan Shirley, attorney for Hawaii Citizens, said he hasn't been told of the Army's decision but the group is "genuinely pleased" to hear that the Army will remove the Christian icon.

"If this is true," Shirley said, "the action sends a strong message that the wall between state and church stands tall and forbids government from endorsing Christianity in particular over other religions."

The Army said it will cost as much as $60,000 this year to maintain the cross, which is no longer used for Easter Sunday sunrise services. The area is too small, and the services are now held on Cannoneer Field at Schofield Barracks.

The cross is just one of several military facilities that will have to be demolished because of severe cuts in the Army's local budget.

This is the second religious symbol it has had to give up.

A nearly identical lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Jewish War Veterans in 1988 resulted in a 65-foot cross at Camp Smith being removed.

That cross was dismantled after a federal court ruled that it violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

It was replaced with an 80-foot flagpole which still flies a 38-foot-by-20-foot American flag. A slab of the cross is preserved in a framed glass box on the wall near the entrance to Camp Smith headquarters.

The Kolekole cross was erected in 1962 and cost $4,413. Earlier versions of the cross were made of wood and were erected as early as the 1920s.

Shortly after World War II, a 25-foot wooden cross was erected, and the steel replacement has been up since 1962.

http://starbulletin.com/97/10/20/news/story2.html

[24KT]

I allways thought the only major difference between Fallwell and Khomeini was - clothing, hairstyle and language.

I think Khomeini had a few more wrinkles, ...but other than that, yep... 2 sides of the same coin. 

[The Coach]

You had to google it? If I'd known that, I wudda referred you to Rush Limbaugh's biggest sycophant I-One. He uses the name Coach these days, ...but he seems to know an awful lot about them. For a while there, he mentioned them just about every other post, ...even posted their weblink within the forum a few times. 

I know enough to know that they are liberal backed and those scumb from the ACLU defend them...........you're a liberal...right?

[24KT]

I know enough to know that they are liberal backed and those scumb from the ACLU defend them...........you're a liberal...right?

How could they be liberal backed, ...when all the politicians living their lifestyle seem to be Republican?

Remember Mark Foley? Co-chair of the congressional committee on missing & exploited children?

We know them, not by what they say, ...but rather by what they do.

[The Coach]

How could they be liberal backed, ...when all the politicians living their lifestyle seem to be Republican?

Remember Mark Foley? Co-chair of the congressional committee on missing & exploited children?

We know them, not by what they say, ...but rather by what they do.

Don't get me started, you'll lose.

[24KT]

Don't get me started, you'll lose.

I doubt that, ...but I know I'll be amused.